Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Tom Russell]

> Date:Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:39:53 -0700
>From:Ed Jaffe <edja...@phoenixsoftware.com>
>Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

>On 4/9/2017 8:48 AM, Lindy Mayfield wrote:
>> For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
>> can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?

>Not unless you're 100% certain there was no multitasking and nothing was 
>redirected to a specialty engine.
 
>Edward E Jaffe

Good point Edward. 
If they use the default (shipped in SAMPLIB) IEFACTRT the CPU time reported is 
the time on CP plus the time on zIIP multiplied by the zIIP speed normalization 
factor (SMF30SNF).  On a sub-capacity model the reported CPU time can be many 
times the elapsed. 

G. Tom Russell   

“Stay calm. Be brave. Wait for the signs” — Jasper FriendlyBear
“… and remember to leave good news alone.” — Gracie HeavyHand 

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Ed Jaffe]

On 4/9/2017 8:48 AM, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?


Not unless you're 100% certain there was no multitasking and nothing was 
redirected to a specialty engine.


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Mark Post]

>>> On 4/10/2017 at 12:13 PM, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: 
> Isn't Linux available on at least one "real machine"?  

Linux runs on just about every type of machine, "real" or not.


Mark Post

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Paul Gilmartin]

On 2017-04-09, at 10:57, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

> you got me on that one, gil. :)  trying to exploit the ambiguity of a Sunday. 
>  guilty.
> 
> i got a side gig to figure out some performance problems, and it ain't on 
> linux, but on a real machine.  and nothing is good on tv at the moment.
>  
Isn't Linux available on at least one "real machine"?  

-- gil

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Tom Marchant]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:48:12 +, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

>if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), can I assume 
>that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?

If it is a single task application, yes.
If it runs multiple tasks, not necessarily. For example, if you have an 
application that attaches 4 additional tasks and each of the 5 tasks uses 5 
seconds of CPU during the 10 seconds elapsed time, it would use a total of 25 
seconds of CPU time.

-- 
Tom Marchant

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Avram Friedman]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:48:12 +, Lindy Mayfield  
wrote:

The easy answer is no it is not reasonable to think that.

Min elapsed time
=
corrected recorded CPU time
/
# CPs

Avram Friedman

>This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but I've 
>been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
>
>For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
>can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
>
>Regards,
>Lindy
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Massimo Biancucci]

Guessing once again,

if for "offending" you mean jobs using lot of CPU within one interval, it's
better to look at SMF30 subtype other than 4 (2,3, or 6 maybe).

Usually this "prunes" problems like jobs waiting for init or HSM recall and
so on and gives you a good understanding about ASs using more CPU. With
SMFINTVL little (reasonably) enough it can be a good point view.

Regards.
Massimo

2017-04-10 10:48 GMT+02:00 Lindy Mayfield <lindy.mayfi...@sas.com>:

> My question I guess was a bit more theoretical.
>
> If I submitted an assembler job that ran in a tight loop doing nothing but
> using CPU, it went straight into the RDR, high service class, and ran for
> 10 CPU seconds.
>
> I'd expect the job to run at least 10 seconds wall clock time, plus the
> overhead of the system, but never under 10 seconds unless it is
> multithreaded perhaps.
>
> From SMF recs I can identify jobs sorted on cpu and excp to try to get the
> worst offenders in all cases, but then I have to go into the individual job
> log and see elapsed time.  I have already discovered huge wait times that I
> cannot explain due to what I think is taking 20 minutes to not find a
> dataset, perhaps some sort of catalog search problem.
>
> So, as Lizette pointed out, my scheme has flaws because there are too many
> factors that influence elapsed time, including locating system issues from
> RMF3 and other nasty SMF record types.  It's easier to write a program to
> parse the job logs. :)
>
> Thanks for all you help and knowledge.  I joined this group about 17 years
> ago, and I'm still the baby of the group. :)
>
> /Lindy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
> Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 22.16
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
>
> I am not sure that looking at one SMF record can tell the story.
>
> If the job ran long, was it due to
>
> I/O
>
> Looping Code
>
> Larger than normal Data Load
>
> And so on.
>
> Maybe other can provide better insight.
>
> Lizette
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:42 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> >
> > I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which
> > is very important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time
> > means the job ran a long time.
> >
> > /Lindy
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
> > Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> >
> > What are you trying to solve?
> >
> > Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.
> >
> >
> > Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run
> > 2 hours wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.
> >
> > Lizette
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> > > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
> > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > > Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> > >
> > > This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week,
> > > but I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
> > >
> > > For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I
> > > think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed
> > > time to
> > run?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Lindy
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lindy Mayfield]

My question I guess was a bit more theoretical.  

If I submitted an assembler job that ran in a tight loop doing nothing but 
using CPU, it went straight into the RDR, high service class, and ran for 10 
CPU seconds.  

I'd expect the job to run at least 10 seconds wall clock time, plus the 
overhead of the system, but never under 10 seconds unless it is multithreaded 
perhaps.

>From SMF recs I can identify jobs sorted on cpu and excp to try to get the 
>worst offenders in all cases, but then I have to go into the individual job 
>log and see elapsed time.  I have already discovered huge wait times that I 
>cannot explain due to what I think is taking 20 minutes to not find a dataset, 
>perhaps some sort of catalog search problem.  

So, as Lizette pointed out, my scheme has flaws because there are too many 
factors that influence elapsed time, including locating system issues from RMF3 
and other nasty SMF record types.  It's easier to write a program to parse the 
job logs. :)

Thanks for all you help and knowledge.  I joined this group about 17 years ago, 
and I'm still the baby of the group. :)

/Lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 22.16
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

I am not sure that looking at one SMF record can tell the story.

If the job ran long, was it due to

I/O

Looping Code

Larger than normal Data Load

And so on.

Maybe other can provide better insight.

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:42 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which 
> is very important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time 
> means the job ran a long time.
> 
> /Lindy
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
> Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> What are you trying to solve?
> 
> Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 
> 2 hours wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.
> 
> Lizette
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> >
> > This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, 
> > but I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
> >
> > For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I 
> > think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed 
> > time to
> run?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lindy

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

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[John McKown]

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Clark Morris 
wrote:

> [Default] On 9 Apr 2017 09:41:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
> lindy.mayfi...@sas.com (Lindy Mayfield) wrote:
>
> >I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is
> very important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the
> job ran a long time.
>
> There is a step start time and date in the SMF 30 type 4 record.  I am
> not certain if there is a step stop time and date since I don't want
> to take the time to bring up the appropriate manual and I don't have
> access to the Assembler Macros.  There may be other records that have
> start and stop times and the SMF 26 records may have execution time
> but only for the job.
>

​The SMF record is written when the step ends. Therefore, I have alway
_assumed_ that the SMF date written field (which exists on all SMF
records) is the "step end time".​



>
> Clark Morris
>
>
-- 
"Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is
ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Vince Coen]

That funny enough is interesting.

In accumulating total CPU usage however no account appears to show up 
the secondary (offloaded) processes  such as in

the block or char controllers etc.


Under *nix you can account for all i/p and if one knows the processors 
used can therefore work it out but life is too short.


All counts at least for accountants :)

But there again I am (was) not...

Vincent


On 09/04/17 19:10, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:

vbc...@gmail.com (Vince Coen) writes:

A M/F may not break down CPU time between system and the application
depending on O/S used.

as undergraduate in the 60s, I remember rewritting some CP/67 (precursor
to vm370) so that it world accurately account for all time. More than a
decade later I saw code in unix that was similar to the 60s cp/67 code.

I conjectured that was because some of the CTSS people had gone to the
5th flr to work on multics and others had gone to the ibm science center
on the 4th flr and did cp/40-cms, cp/67-cms, invented GML, bunch of
online stuff, etc. Folklore that the people that had originally done
Unix had previously been working on Multics and "Unix" is a play on
simplified Multics.

About the time I encountered the Unix code ... MVS was claiming that
unaccounted (cpu) time could easily be 50-60% aka "capture ratio", they
calculated wallclock cpu "wait" time, so the inverse was wallclock cpu
use, "capture ratio" was the accounted for cpu divided by (wallclock
elapsed time minus wait time).

This showed up when internal datacenters were bursting at the seams with
largest POK mainframes ... and were looking at offloading lots of the
MVS workload to distributed 4341s out in departmental areas ... and were
not correctly taking into account "capture ratio".

Some of these very large MVS applications weren't able to run on
vm/370-cms.  The issue was that the original os/360 system services
simulation was only 64kbytes ... and a much more complete implementation
somehow got lost when head of POK convinced corporate to kill vm370
product in the mid-70s (and transfer the people to work on MVS/XA)
... Endicott did eventually manage to resurrect the VM370 product
administration ... but had to reconstitute a group from scratch.

as referenced in this old email (discussing "capture ratio" and other
things) ... it only took another 12kbytes of system services simulation
to get the MVS applications into VM/370-CMS production
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email800717



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

AW: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Peter Hunkeler]

> Elapsed time will ALWAYS be longer than CPU time.


This is only true if there is no multitasking / multithreading in the job. 
Lindy asked quite generally if a job's elapsed time would always be longer than 
the cpu time it used. And the general answer would be no.


My DB2 colleagues run DB2 reorgs as batch jobs. Just lately, I saw one of these 
job using 670% (yes, that is six-seven-zero) of cpu over a really long time 
(can't check the exact number right now). If that job would be given the 
access, the cpu usage in say 30 minutes of elapsed would be some 200 minutes.



An extreme example, I admit.


--
Peter Hunkeler




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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lizette Koehler]

I am not sure that looking at one SMF record can tell the story.

If the job ran long, was it due to

I/O

Looping Code

Larger than normal Data Load

And so on.

Maybe other can provide better insight.

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:42 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is very
> important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the job ran
> a long time.
> 
> /Lindy
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
> Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> What are you trying to solve?
> 
> Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 2 hours
> wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.
> 
> Lizette
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> >
> > This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but
> > I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
> >
> > For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I
> > think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to
> run?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lindy

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[retired mainframer]

If a job executes in parallel threads on multiple CPUs, the CPU time could
be more than the elapsed time.

A massive number cruncher could run for an hour and consume 59 minutes of
CPU.  An interactive application that waits on a user could run for an hour
and consume only seconds of CPU.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:42 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is
very important.
> I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the job ran a long
time.

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

vbc...@gmail.com (Vince Coen) writes:
> A M/F may not break down CPU time between system and the application
> depending on O/S used.

as undergraduate in the 60s, I remember rewritting some CP/67 (precursor
to vm370) so that it world accurately account for all time. More than a
decade later I saw code in unix that was similar to the 60s cp/67 code.

I conjectured that was because some of the CTSS people had gone to the
5th flr to work on multics and others had gone to the ibm science center
on the 4th flr and did cp/40-cms, cp/67-cms, invented GML, bunch of
online stuff, etc. Folklore that the people that had originally done
Unix had previously been working on Multics and "Unix" is a play on
simplified Multics.

About the time I encountered the Unix code ... MVS was claiming that
unaccounted (cpu) time could easily be 50-60% aka "capture ratio", they
calculated wallclock cpu "wait" time, so the inverse was wallclock cpu
use, "capture ratio" was the accounted for cpu divided by (wallclock
elapsed time minus wait time).

This showed up when internal datacenters were bursting at the seams with
largest POK mainframes ... and were looking at offloading lots of the
MVS workload to distributed 4341s out in departmental areas ... and were
not correctly taking into account "capture ratio".

Some of these very large MVS applications weren't able to run on
vm/370-cms.  The issue was that the original os/360 system services
simulation was only 64kbytes ... and a much more complete implementation
somehow got lost when head of POK convinced corporate to kill vm370
product in the mid-70s (and transfer the people to work on MVS/XA)
... Endicott did eventually manage to resurrect the VM370 product
administration ... but had to reconstitute a group from scratch.

as referenced in this old email (discussing "capture ratio" and other
things) ... it only took another 12kbytes of system services simulation
to get the MVS applications into VM/370-CMS production
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email800717

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Vince Coen]

If you take a look at the logs for the job you will see the start, end 
and lapsed time along with the CPU time for all steps run.


Elapsed time will ALWAYS be longer than CPU time.

Why?
1.  System is multi tasking so runs many jobs at the same time depending 
on capabilities.

2.  Overheads for various external processes that look after the job/s.
3.  Speed of operators (including robots) to load any required tapes or 
exchangeable disk packs if used.

4.  Others, but you get the idea.

Try running similar job/s on a PC at least under Linux within a script 
with a prefix of time you will see the same.


For example running :-

--
#!/bin/bash
time rsync -avvuhh --stats --delete --exclude=/home/vince/.VirtualBox 
--exclude="/home/vince/VirtualBox VMs" --exclude=/home/vince/Music2 
/home /home/vince/Music2/Backups > rsync-home.log 2>rsync-home.err

exit 0
--

Output is  :-

--
[vince@Applewood ~]$ sudo ./rsync-home.sh
[sudo] password for vince:

real1m10.523s
user0m13.190s
sys 0m10.720s
--

So CPU is 13.19 + 10.72  = 23.81   lapsed 70.52 seconds.
This was run on a multi user / tasking system with web, ftp, mysql and 
other servers running.


A M/F may not break down CPU time between system and the application 
depending on O/S used.




Vince

On 09/04/17 17:42, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is very 
important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the job ran a 
long time.

/Lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

What are you trying to solve?

Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.


Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 2 hours 
wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.

Lizette



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but
I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.

For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I
think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?

Regards,
Lindy

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

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




--
- IMPORTANT –

This email and the information in it may be confidential, legally privileged
and/or protected by law.
It is intended solely for the use of the person to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose,
or store or copy the information in any medium.

Please also delete all copies of this email & any attachments from your system.

If this is an encrypted email it is your responsibility to maintain the 1024
byte key system even for one-use keys. Once mail has been sent the sending key
is not kept and therefore a replacement mail cannot be resent.

We cannot guarantee the security or confidentiality of non encrypted email
communications.
We do not accept any liability for losses or damages that you may suffer as a
result of your receipt of this email including but not limited to computer
service or system failure, access delays or interruption, data non-delivery
or mis-delivery, computer viruses or other harmful components.

Copyright in this email and any attachments belongs to Applewood Computers.
Should you communicate with anyone at Applewood Computers by email,
you consent to us monitoring and reading any such correspondence.

Nothing in this email shall be taken or read as suggesting, proposing or
relating to any agreement concerted practice or other practice that could
infringe UK or EC competition legislation (unless it is against Security
requirements).

This Email and its attachments (if any) are scanned for virii using Clamd
and ClamAV 0.99.2 or later (Linux x64).

Dykegrove Limited T/A Applewood Computers is a company registered in England
(no. 01681349) whose registered office is at Applewood House,
17 Stag Green Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 5EB, UK.

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lindy Mayfield]

from one single record I cannot get elapsed time, but from a set of records I 
can. 

please, don't look it up. I already have. :)  I'm only dealing with a few 
fields from that record, captured elsewhere, so even if it were there I 
couldn't use it.  

thank you, Clark.  a number of the smf recs layouts used to hang from my door 
at one time, all the way to the floor.  they don't anymore.  

/lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Clark Morris
Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 20.01
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Default] On 9 Apr 2017 09:41:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main 
lindy.mayfi...@sas.com (Lindy Mayfield) wrote:

>I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is very 
>important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the job ran 
>a long time.

There is a step start time and date in the SMF 30 type 4 record.  I am not 
certain if there is a step stop time and date since I don't want to take the 
time to bring up the appropriate manual and I don't have access to the 
Assembler Macros.  There may be other records that have start and stop times 
and the SMF 26 records may have execution time but only for the job.

Clark Morris
>
>/Lindy
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
>On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
>Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
>
>What are you trying to solve?
>
>Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.  
>
>
>Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 2 hours 
>wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.
>
>Lizette
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
>> On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
>> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
>> 
>> This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but 
>> I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
>> 
>> For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I 
>> think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Lindy
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
>email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
>email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Clark Morris]

[Default] On 9 Apr 2017 09:41:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
lindy.mayfi...@sas.com (Lindy Mayfield) wrote:

>I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is very 
>important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the job ran 
>a long time.

There is a step start time and date in the SMF 30 type 4 record.  I am
not certain if there is a step stop time and date since I don't want
to take the time to bring up the appropriate manual and I don't have
access to the Assembler Macros.  There may be other records that have
start and stop times and the SMF 26 records may have execution time
but only for the job.

Clark Morris
>
>/Lindy
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
>Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
>
>What are you trying to solve?
>
>Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.  
>
>
>Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 2 hours 
>wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.
>
>Lizette
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
>> On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
>> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
>> 
>> This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but 
>> I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
>> 
>> For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I 
>> think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Lindy
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
>lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lindy Mayfield]

you got me on that one, gil. :)  trying to exploit the ambiguity of a Sunday.  
guilty.

i got a side gig to figure out some performance problems, and it ain't on 
linux, but on a real machine.  and nothing is good on tv at the moment.

as Lizette pointed out, elapsed time is one thing independent on cpu.  

and vince pointed out my lack of knowledge.  on unix (linux) cpu can go over 
100%.  but for some reason I thought that no matter what on mvs, 1 cpu second 
(unless multithreaded) equaled 1 second at least wall clock time, no matter the 
cpu configuration.

I could have perhaps asked this a better and more mainframe way:

In the JES log from a batch job, will I ever see an elapsed time less than the 
CPU time?

/Lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 19.03
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:48:12 +, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

>This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but I've 
>been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
>
(It's only Sunday.)
(On what day does Finland(?) start the week?)

>For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
>can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
> 
How do multiple CPUs count?  Might it be 10 seconds/number of CPUs active?

-- gil

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

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lindy Mayfield]

I only have CPU time from SMF 30 but I don't have elapsed time which is very 
important.  I'd like to somewhat infer that a high CPU time means the job ran a 
long time.

/Lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: sunnuntai 9. huhtikuuta 2017 18.55
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

What are you trying to solve?

Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.  


Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 2 hours 
wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but 
> I've been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
> 
> For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I 
> think), can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
> 
> Regards,
> Lindy

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

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:48:12 +, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

>This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but I've 
>been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
>
(It's only Sunday.)
(On what day does Finland(?) start the week?)

>For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
>can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
> 
How do multiple CPUs count?  Might it be 10 seconds/number of CPUs active?

-- gil

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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Vince Coen]

Yes providing you are only running app on one cpu .e., not multi 
threading etc.


On 09/04/17 16:48, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but I've been 
working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.

For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?



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

Re: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lizette Koehler]

What are you trying to solve?

Jobs get swapped in and out depending on what work they are doing.  


Are you trying to relate wall clock to cpu time?  I have seen jobs run 2 hours
wall clock time and only take 10 mins of CPU time.

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time
> 
> This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but I've
> been working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.
> 
> For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think),
> can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?
> 
> Regards,
> Lindy

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

CPU Timerons/Seconds vs Wall-clock Time

[Lindy Mayfield]

This may or may not be the dumbest question I've asked this week, but I've been 
working with Linux a lot lately so that's my excuse.

For example, if an MVS job ran and consumed 10 CPU seconds (SMF 30 I think), 
can I assume that it at least took 10 seconds of elapsed time to run?

Regards,
Lindy

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