Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/21/2007 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Stitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: BSC NJE is needed if you are communicating with a system which does not support (or is not configured) SNA NJE. No; you can use a CTCA or TCP/IP link. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Obviously #2 is going to be faster, since the transaction may never even need to communicate with system B, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to the subject of this thread. What exactly do you mean by FICON CF links? Dave Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/21/2007 6:28 PM Job A on system A issues static SQL query to DB2 on system B. Which is faster: 1) DDF call to DB2 on system B via APPC over FICON CTC or 2) Local call to DB2 member of datasharing group w/ FICON CF links? Considering the overhead of DRDA protocol and independent enclave creation/classification/scheduling, etc., I would guess option 2 is more efficient in terms of CPU and response time. I'm just not sure how to determine in theory to what degree. db -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL -- SPEED!!! XCF signalling via Ficon CTC links well outperform CF structures. Others will benefit similarly (VTAM). Kees. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Can we use the same CTC definitions in VTAM for FCTC's i.e can be just activate the FCTC definitions exact;y like CTC **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Our XCF and VTAM FCTCs are identical. In fact, they're just different devices on the same 'control units'. . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Mendelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Sent by: IBM IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Mainframe cc Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's 12/24/2007 11:36 AM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Can we use the same CTC definitions in VTAM for FCTC's i.e can be just activate the FCTC definitions exact;y like CTC -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
I mean CF links. Thanks to all who replied. db -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Rowe Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 11:35 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's Obviously #2 is going to be faster, since the transaction may never even need to communicate with system B, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to the subject of this thread. What exactly do you mean by FICON CF links? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:28:18 -0500, Dave Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Job A on system A issues static SQL query to DB2 on system B. Which is faster: 1) DDF call to DB2 on system B via APPC over FICON CTC or 2) Local call to DB2 member of datasharing group w/ FICON CF links? Considering the overhead of DRDA protocol and independent enclave creation/classification/scheduling, etc., I would guess option 2 is more efficient in terms of CPU and response time. I'm just not sure how to determine in theory to what degree. db #2 for sure. BTDTGTTS. That is the whole point of high speed data sharing (|| sysplex). Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
BSC NJE is needed if you are communicating with a system which does not support (or is not configured) SNA NJE. I currently have one with a VM RSCS system. :-( On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:53:49 +0100, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip Robinson wrote: Just to clarify: if GRS is part of a basic sysplex, it uses the same PATHIN/PATHOUT CTCs that XCF uses. SCTC or FCTC is required. With GRS ring directly over CTC (not XCF) you can have GRSplex sysplex. In other words you can have out-of-sysplex systems in GRSplex. Or multiple sysplexes. If you really want it then you need BCTC = ESCON only. Disclaimer: I have never said that GRS configuration as above is good idea. Is there still a reason for JES2 BSC NJE? IMHO only tradition . -- Radoslaw Skorupka -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Job A on system A issues static SQL query to DB2 on system B. Which is faster: 1) DDF call to DB2 on system B via APPC over FICON CTC or 2) Local call to DB2 member of datasharing group w/ FICON CF links? Considering the overhead of DRDA protocol and independent enclave creation/classification/scheduling, etc., I would guess option 2 is more efficient in terms of CPU and response time. I'm just not sure how to determine in theory to what degree. db -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL -- SPEED!!! XCF signalling via Ficon CTC links well outperform CF structures. Others will benefit similarly (VTAM). Kees. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Skip Robinson wrote: Just to clarify: if GRS is part of a basic sysplex, it uses the same PATHIN/PATHOUT CTCs that XCF uses. SCTC or FCTC is required. With GRS ring directly over CTC (not XCF) you can have GRSplex sysplex. In other words you can have out-of-sysplex systems in GRSplex. Or multiple sysplexes. If you really want it then you need BCTC = ESCON only. Disclaimer: I have never said that GRS configuration as above is good idea. Is there still a reason for JES2 BSC NJE? IMHO only tradition . -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:54:51 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - of course with a shared CF engine. But with current hardware (link technology, z9 engines) the links are once again faster. YMMV. Mark I was at a Parallel Sysplex and Performance training earlier this month and the teacher told us, that CTCs ourperform CF signalling paths, because of the multiple step (write, notify, read) approach for the CF path versus the single step (what is written is synchronously read at the other side) approach for the CTC path. And as I said: if the CTCs for our production sysplex are going to perform as they do now in our testsysplex, and I so no reason why not, then they will double the XCF signalling performance. Ahhh... a teacher at a class told you. Then it must be true! :-) I understand that (this is the way I heard it explained once) a direct pipe is quicker than a mail box. But there are a lot of factors that go into YMMV with this. Type of links, how many, speed of the CF CPs, average message size, rate of signaling, etc. For example, for small messages (1K) even ESCON can be better than FICON at lower signaling rates. Here is a recent post from Barbara Nitz where she talks about this in her installation: http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0712L=ibm-mainD=1amp;O=DF=S=P=142096 I haven't looked at our numbers closely since we brought in z9s, but I know that the CTCs aren't getting used... even though they are defined and I have 4 transport classes. You will also find a lot of contrary information to what your teacher told you in this white paper: Parallel Sysplex Performance: XCF Performance Considerations V3.1 http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/WP100743 The benchmarks in that paper were done with a z990. A z9 CP is much faster, although that is only part of the response time equation. But what really matters for you is the results in your environment using your hardware. So I'm not disagreeing that CTCs are faster for _you_. BTW, can you say what your HW config is (CF, type of links, FICON EX or FICON EX2, etc.)? Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:54:51 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - of course with a shared CF engine. But with current hardware (link technology, z9 engines) the links are once again faster. YMMV. Mark I was at a Parallel Sysplex and Performance training earlier this month and the teacher told us, that CTCs ourperform CF signalling paths, because of the multiple step (write, notify, read) approach for the CF path versus the single step (what is written is synchronously read at the other side) approach for the CTC path. And as I said: if the CTCs for our production sysplex are going to perform as they do now in our testsysplex, and I so no reason why not, then they will double the XCF signalling performance. Ahhh... a teacher at a class told you. Then it must be true! :-) Come on, give me some credits, I have been running around in this arena long enough not trip into this, but he gave me an interesting item to dig into. I understand that (this is the way I heard it explained once) a direct pipe is quicker than a mail box. But there are a lot of factors that go into YMMV with this. Type of links, how many, speed of the CF CPs, average message size, rate of signaling, etc. For example, for small messages (1K) .. But what really matters for you is the results in your environment using your hardware. So I'm not disagreeing that CTCs are faster for _you_. BTW, can you say what your HW config is (CF, type of links, FICON EX or FICON EX2, etc.)? Mark 2 z9 machines, each with a dedicated ICF for CF and z/OS LPARs, ISC3 links, Ficon ex2 links. CF engines for the testsysplex are shared CPs, hence the obvious improvement. Of course YMMV and I will wait for the production figures, but I have good expectations as I said before. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Mark Zelden wrote: [...] I was at a Parallel Sysplex and Performance training earlier this month and the teacher told us, that CTCs ourperform CF signalling paths, because of the multiple step (write, notify, read) approach for the CF path versus the single step (what is written is synchronously read at the other side) approach for the CTC path. [...] Ahhh... a teacher at a class told you. Then it must be true! :-) Maybe because *it is* true? ;-) I was told (almost) the same information. *Almost*. It was: *for short messages* CTC outperforms IXC* structures. So, it depends on the size. What size falls in short category - it depends on speed of links (CTC and sysplex), CF CPU speed and workload. That's why one can have CLASSDEF statements in COUPLExx. Just my $0.02 -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
From a management perspective FICON is simpler if your configuration requires numerous pairs of ESCON channels to get around ESCON limits (i.e., implementing interesting candidate lists to avoid message CBDG089I) and not to mention allowing you the flexibility to implement a true any-to-any scheme that makes tasks such as moving systems among processors nothing like the old days. Regards, Kevin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: FICON vs ESCON CTC's Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL -- The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi change. - FORTRAN manual for Xerox computers -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL -- The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi change. - FORTRAN manual for Xerox computers -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL -- SPEED!!! XCF signalling via Ficon CTC links well outperform CF structures. Others will benefit similarly (VTAM). Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:20 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? Of course. But I guess it could depend on the application. We saw much better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs when we migrated to FICON. Of course now the CF links are faster (again) than using CTCs so the XCF part wouldn't matter as much. Yes, it does, because of the protocol. With the CTC protocol a message is sent directly from the sender to the receiver. Via the CF structure, a message is put in the Structure, the CF notifies the receiver that there is a message and the receiver then retrieves the message. I just converted our testsysplex to CTC signalling paths and noted a 20 times performance inprovement. This is of course due to the shared CF engines, that perform relatively badly. However if I compare these CTC figures to our Production CF Structure figures I still expect an improvement there by a factor 2. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:20 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? Of course. But I guess it could depend on the application. We saw much better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs when we migrated to FICON. Of course now the CF links are faster (again) than using CTCs so the XCF part wouldn't matter as much. In a basic sysplex CTCs are your only choice. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:30:09 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:20 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? Of course. But I guess it could depend on the application. We saw much better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs when we migrated to FICON. Of course now the CF links are faster (again) than using CTCs so the XCF part wouldn't matter as much. Yes, it does, because of the protocol. With the CTC protocol a message is sent directly from the sender to the receiver. Via the CF structure, a message is put in the Structure, the CF notifies the receiver that there is a message and the receiver then retrieves the message. I just converted our testsysplex to CTC signalling paths and noted a 20 times performance inprovement. This is of course due to the shared CF engines, that perform relatively badly. However if I compare these CTC figures to our Production CF Structure figures I still expect an improvement there by a factor 2. Yes - of course with a shared CF engine. But with current hardware (link technology, z9 engines) the links are once again faster. YMMV. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:19:36 -0600, Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs ... ... However, be aware that there has been a recovery issue in VTAM's support of FICON CTCs - APAR OA22059. INOP rather than PENDING after 1st activation. (First activation following a POR, I think.) The PTFs addressing this were made available less than a week ago. Pat O'Keefe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:17:21 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:19:36 -0600, Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs ... ... However, be aware that there has been a recovery issue in VTAM's support of FICON CTCs - APAR OA22059. INOP rather than PENDING after 1st activation. (First activation following a POR, I think.) The PTFs addressing this were made available less than a week ago. Yep. The only time we ever ran into it was after a POR. And those have been done so few times in the last few years that I never put 2 and 2 together until after I saw the alert for the APAR via ASAP. I always knew right away when I was unable to logon to another LPAR from an SNA session manager so the problem was fixed immediately. Unfortunately we had to do a POR (planned) of one box a little over a month ago and ran into the problem. Hopefully for the last time! Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
On the plus side, the unit address limitation with ESCON is greatly increased. On the negative side, you cannot have a BCTC device, which is required for GRS and JES2 BSC NJE connections. On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:19:36 -0600, Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:20 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? Of course. But I guess it could depend on the application. We saw much better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs when we migrated to FICON. Of course now the CF links are faster (again) than using CTCs so the XCF part wouldn't matter as much. In a basic sysplex CTCs are your only choice. Mark -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Just to clarify: if GRS is part of a basic sysplex, it uses the same PATHIN/PATHOUT CTCs that XCF uses. SCTC or FCTC is required. Is there still a reason for JES2 BSC NJE? . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Stitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] G.COM To Sent by: IBM IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Mainframe cc Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's 12/19/2007 02:59 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU On the plus side, the unit address limitation with ESCON is greatly increased. On the negative side, you cannot have a BCTC device, which is required for GRS and JES2 BSC NJE connections. On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:19:36 -0600, Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:20 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's
Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:30:09 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:17:20 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? Of course. But I guess it could depend on the application. We saw much better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs when we migrated to FICON. Of course now the CF links are faster (again) than using CTCs so the XCF part wouldn't matter as much. Yes, it does, because of the protocol. With the CTC protocol a message is sent directly from the sender to the receiver. Via the CF structure, a message is put in the Structure, the CF notifies the receiver that there is a message and the receiver then retrieves the message. I just converted our testsysplex to CTC signalling paths and noted a 20 times performance inprovement. This is of course due to the shared CF engines, that perform relatively badly. However if I compare these CTC figures to our Production CF Structure figures I still expect an improvement there by a factor 2. Yes - of course with a shared CF engine. But with current hardware (link technology, z9 engines) the links are once again faster. YMMV. Mark I was at a Parallel Sysplex and Performance training earlier this month and the teacher told us, that CTCs ourperform CF signalling paths, because of the multiple step (write, notify, read) approach for the CF path versus the single step (what is written is synchronously read at the other side) approach for the CTC path. And as I said: if the CTCs for our production sysplex are going to perform as they do now in our testsysplex, and I so no reason why not, then they will double the XCF signalling performance. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
