IBM has published the LSPR numbers for thirty years. They're a ballpark of what 
to expect.Each company should have a benchmark workload for capacity planning 
and growth. In 2017 WDC came out with MF counters to help measure the effects 
of different 
workloads.http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/TC000066 

There have been some whoppers in reporting. Like the 9672-n3 to n4 weren't 
adding up to expectations. Cheryl pointed out what had happened was they ran 
out of room on the chip and had to add an off-board processor for some of the 
instructions. It was really nasty in some of the COBOL programs with Indexed by 
usage was high. So in the LSPR numbers no COBOL pgms with Indexed-by were used.
There were also a couple z9's sent back because they were slower than the 
predecessors with 'old COBOL'. Always something...In a message dated 8/14/2019 
1:50:42 PM Central Standard Time, jcew...@acm.org writes:
In 1965, even thoseexposed to S/360 would have had no experience yet to make 
them assumethe architecture would be stable enough and kept as a subset of 
futurearchitectures to allow running the same code decades later, much lesshave 
z-architecture hardware supporting the same instructions as asubset in 2019.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to