Hello Tom,
We have CA-WEBGATEWAY being used by a product called UltraQuest
from Select Systems. UltraQuest and Nomad (4gl) use the CA-WEBGATEWAY
as the
transfer mechanism to get ad-hoc reports from our VSE/ESA VSAM file.
I started at 32 Meg, had some storage problems that went away
with
the 64 Meg.
The programmers come in via TN3270 to get to all the various VSE
systems.
I do a lot of email (sendfile) of files/reports created by
UltraQuest.
I could lower that amount now, but it is working very well.
Ed Martin
Aultman Health Foundation
330-588-4723
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ext. 40441
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:46 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: zVM 5.3 TCPIP memory problem
>
> Hi Ed
>
> I'm always interested in the whys and wheres....
>
> I'm on z/VM 5.2 and my stack is 32MB (I did have to up it from the
earlier
> release).
> However, my "res=" from indicate user, shows 1,313 pages used.
>
> I do know about the 5 MB hit, due to LE. Which I thought was a hit to
> clients, and not the stack.
>
> I was wondering what your "res" usage was for your 64 MB machine?
> Now that we have vswitch, TCPIP does quite a bit less here. Very
seldom
> does it pop up in the performance monitor <G>.
>
> I'm really the only CMS user (and using TN3270).
> But I have some 66 service machines, VSE guests and still some Linux
> guests (that haven't been migrated over to the IFL), with the guests
using
> TCP/IP (but not the TCPIP stack).
>
> Not that virtual storage costs much (anything), but what caused you to
go
> to 64 MB?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom Duerbusch
> THD Consulting
> (trying to head off a rude awaking if 32 MB isn't sufficient)
>
> FELINE PHYSICS:
> Law of Cat Inertia
>
> A cat at rest will tend to remain at rest, unless acted upon by
> some outside force - such as the opening of cat food, or a nearby
> scurrying mouse.
>
>
> >>> "Edward M. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/17/2007 3:33 PM >>>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I am working on upgrading to z/VM5.3 from z/VM 4.3. In the
> process, I am reading lots of info.
> The program directory indicates that with Host/domain name resolution
> being performed by LE you need a minimum of
> 16m of virtual storage.
>
> And for 5.3 most server machines will need 32 meg and probably
> more.
>
> I have our z/VM 4.3 TCPIP at 64m already.
> Ed Martin
> Aultman Health Foundation
> 330-588-4723
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ext. 40441
> ________________________________
>
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Mark Bodenstein
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: zVM 5.3 TCPIP memory problem
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the information. I work with Jim and am also trying to
> understand the differences in memory use of the z/VM 5.3 TCP/IP
clients
> compared to the z/VM 4.4 ones.
>
> The web page you reference talks about C sockets library changes, but
> says these were already present in z/VM 4.4. The difference we're
> seeing is between 4.4 and 5.3. So does this apply? I also wonder
> because we're seeing this with ftp and telnet, which aren't mentioned
on
> your web page as using the C socket library. (Do they?)
>
> I've done some more testing, and find that the 5MB or so additional
> memory use that we're seeing only happens when there is a DNS lookup
> involved. So if I do "ftp cornellc.cit.cornell.edu" I see the
> additional memory use, but if I do "ftp 132.236.98.12" I don't.
> Similarly "ftp loopback" doesn't cause the additional memory use. I
see
> the same thing for lpr: lpr profile exec (p raw at
> cornellc.cit.cornell.edu causes the additional memory use, while lpr
> profile exec (p raw at 132.236.98.12 does not.
>
> So what is there about DNS lookup that causes this memory use, while
> otherwise the clients don't suck up virtual storage?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark Bodenstein ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Cornell University
>
> At 01:08 PM 9/14/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
> There are several reasons for the increased use of virtual storage
when
> running
> the TCP/IP functions and utilities. You can read about some of these
at
>
> http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/donovanm/zvmle.html
>
> and specifically look at
>
> http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/donovanm/zvmle.html#LEstor
>
> The 5M "feechur" you mention is an unfortunate artifact of sockets
being
> defined
> as POSIX file descriptors in the Byte File System client code.
"Fixing"
> this
> involves a significant rewrite of a BFS client storage management and
> will
> most likely not happen any time soon.
>
> Mike Donovan
> ---
> zVM 5.3 TCPIP memory problem
>
> I remember back in zVM 5.1 or 5.2 days seeing on the list that there
> were memory problems or memory size issues. I probably didn't follow
it
>
> because I was using 4.4 and probably just thought it would be fixed.
> Now I see that it wasn't fixed. I've just been told by IBM it's a
> "feechur". I'm seeing it with the TCPIP clients, FTP and LPR. They
> grab about 5M and don't release it. I didn't see it in putting the
> release together because whoever runs the MAINT id in installation
with
> a small machine size.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas or a solution or is that just the way it
is?
> Jim
>
> --
> Jim Bohnsack
> Cornell University
> (607) 255-1760
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
