subject:"OMVS Tuning \?"

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

2019-12-13 Thread William Schoen

bpxwunix does a spawn() of /bin/sh.  If you pass the env var
_BPX_SHAREAS=YES a local spawn is done.
Address syscall should be far more efficient than running a shell command
that gives something similar,
not to even mention parsing the output.
A quick experiment on our development system shows 'readdir pathname dir.
attr.'
is about 17X faster than bpxwunix 'ls -l pathname',,'dir.'
and ls is a builtin.  Trying a non-builtin on a small file, readfile is
giving me about 2200X faster than head.
Using _BPX_SHAREAS=YES, ls -l stays about the same and readfile is about
1600X faster than head.

Bill Schoen


>
> Date:Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:44:25 -0600
> From:Kirk Wolf 
> Subject: Re: OMVS Tuning ?
>
> I have a related question, maybe someone who is more familiar with
> bpxwunix() knows - does it do a spawn() or a fork()/exec() under the
> covers?   If spawn(), is it possible to do a local spawn?   The doc that
I
> see is silent.
>
> I'm also not a REXX expert, but what about running your REXX ISPF dialog
> with syscalls('ON') and then using the REXX syscalls directly?
> Could you use the spawn()/spawnp() syscall with a "local spawn"?   Then,
> you will only be dubbing once (at syscalls('ON')), and you wouldn't be
> starting a new OMVS address spaces.
>
> I know that you can have an ISPF dialog program written in C/C++ that
uses
> the C library to do Unix stuff:  the first thing that does a UNIX syscall
> will dub the address space.   You can use (local) spawn to invoke other
> commands in child processes but in the same address space.We've done
> this before and it works well.
>
> On the other hand, maybe your performance problem is something specific
to
> your dev system, and otherwise not really significant?   Try posting a
tiny
> REXX test case and maybe others on the list will see what kind of
> performance they get.
>
> Kirk Wolf
> Dovetailed Technologies
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=http-3A__dovetail.com=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=rFsK2G-
>
kj0QZo0UhxA9XKA=lbGfjbkv3Q2gb_9r2CrFg7iehrvchvT2AdhVuuMZPzc=8rrtkhpUfcLuQibwRUqnAjcMV0ZsTCjkGoB1ticrOaA=

>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:07 AM Lionel B Dyck  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the update on STEPLIB - I didn't see it in 2.1 but my search
> > may have been using the wrong keywords.
> >
> > I did some testing doing bpxwunix from rexx.  1 test was issuing the
env
> > command and the other a cd followed by an ls -la.
> >
> > With libraries in STEPLIB and in ISPLLIB the timing on my system (which
is
> > a z/VM guest) was 10 and 4 seconds respectively under ISPF and 4 and 2
> > seconds in native TSO. This pointed to the ISPLLIB as a tasklib so I
> > removed everything from it and the timing under ISPF went from 10 down
to 7
> > seconds and 4 to 1 seconds.  Removing the STEPLIB got me to 2 and 0.5
> > seconds.
> >
> > Still not subsecond so I suspect there is something in the z/VM setup
> > which I'm not sure how to diagnose but am looking.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Lionel B. Dyck <
> > Website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=http-3A__www.lbdsoftware.com=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg=rFsK2G-
>
kj0QZo0UhxA9XKA=lbGfjbkv3Q2gb_9r2CrFg7iehrvchvT2AdhVuuMZPzc=7tuhSdThQv_b82yhdAYgJk0cPl2I0hp5M2-0XQ44oWU=

> >
> > "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is
what
> > you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
Behalf
> > Of Kirk Wolf
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:20 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: OMVS Tuning ?
> >
> > Lionel,
> >
> > STEPLIB=none has been around for a long time, and I see it documented,
for
> > example, in the V1R13 z/OS UNIX Planning book.
> >
> > Can you offer any more details as to where the performance is bad or
how
> > you notice?   I would assume that what you are describing is something
> > relative to the time required to do a fork/exec or spawn.   Which?
local
> > spawn?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Lionel B Dyck  wrote:
> >
> > > Found one major issue - the systems where the issue is are z/OS 2.1
> > > and the STEPLIB=none variable looks to have been new in 2.2.
Reducing
> > > the STEPLIB and ISPLLIB solved things.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lionel B. Dyck <
> > > Website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=http-3A__www.lbdsoftware.com=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg=rFsK2G-
>
kj0QZo0UhxA9XKA=lbGfjbkv3Q2gb_9r2CrFg7iehrvchvT2AdhVuuMZPzc=7tuhSdThQv_b82yhdAYgJk0cPl2I0h

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

2019-12-12 Thread Kirk Wolf

I have a related question, maybe someone who is more familiar with
bpxwunix() knows - does it do a spawn() or a fork()/exec() under the
covers?   If spawn(), is it possible to do a local spawn?   The doc that I
see is silent.

I'm also not a REXX expert, but what about running your REXX ISPF dialog
with syscalls('ON') and then using the REXX syscalls directly?
Could you use the spawn()/spawnp() syscall with a "local spawn"?   Then,
you will only be dubbing once (at syscalls('ON')), and you wouldn't be
starting a new OMVS address spaces.

I know that you can have an ISPF dialog program written in C/C++ that uses
the C library to do Unix stuff:  the first thing that does a UNIX syscall
will dub the address space.   You can use (local) spawn to invoke other
commands in child processes but in the same address space.We've done
this before and it works well.

On the other hand, maybe your performance problem is something specific to
your dev system, and otherwise not really significant?   Try posting a tiny
REXX test case and maybe others on the list will see what kind of
performance they get.

Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
http://dovetail.com

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:07 AM Lionel B Dyck  wrote:

> Thanks for the update on STEPLIB - I didn't see it in 2.1 but my search
> may have been using the wrong keywords.
>
> I did some testing doing bpxwunix from rexx.  1 test was issuing the env
> command and the other a cd followed by an ls -la.
>
> With libraries in STEPLIB and in ISPLLIB the timing on my system (which is
> a z/VM guest) was 10 and 4 seconds respectively under ISPF and 4 and 2
> seconds in native TSO. This pointed to the ISPLLIB as a tasklib so I
> removed everything from it and the timing under ISPF went from 10 down to 7
> seconds and 4 to 1 seconds.  Removing the STEPLIB got me to 2 and 0.5
> seconds.
>
> Still not subsecond so I suspect there is something in the z/VM setup
> which I'm not sure how to diagnose but am looking.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Lionel B. Dyck <
> Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com
>
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what
> you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Kirk Wolf
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:20 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: OMVS Tuning ?
>
> Lionel,
>
> STEPLIB=none has been around for a long time, and I see it documented, for
> example, in the V1R13 z/OS UNIX Planning book.
>
> Can you offer any more details as to where the performance is bad or how
> you notice?   I would assume that what you are describing is something
> relative to the time required to do a fork/exec or spawn.   Which?  local
> spawn?
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Lionel B Dyck  wrote:
>
> > Found one major issue - the systems where the issue is are z/OS 2.1
> > and the STEPLIB=none variable looks to have been new in 2.2.  Reducing
> > the STEPLIB and ISPLLIB solved things.
> >
> >
> > Lionel B. Dyck <
> > Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com
> >
> > "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is
> > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John
> > Wooden
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:58 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: OMVS Tuning ?
> >
> > I am working on a project where the omvs performance on some systems
> > is slower than one would like -definitely not sub-second.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm looking for tuning suggestions.
> >
> >
> >
> > When under ISPF the elapsed time is more than double the elapsed time
> > when in native TSO.
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that the OMVS environment includes STEPLIB=none but my guess is
> > that the ISPLLIB may be the culprit when under ISPF - I just can't
> > prove that (yet).
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for any guidance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lionel B. Dyck <
> > Website:  <http://www.lbdsoftware.com/> http://www.lbdsoftware.com
> >
> > "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is
> > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John
> > Wooden
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

2019-12-12 Thread Lionel B Dyck

Thanks for the update on STEPLIB - I didn't see it in 2.1 but my search may 
have been using the wrong keywords.

I did some testing doing bpxwunix from rexx.  1 test was issuing the env 
command and the other a cd followed by an ls -la.

With libraries in STEPLIB and in ISPLLIB the timing on my system (which is a 
z/VM guest) was 10 and 4 seconds respectively under ISPF and 4 and 2 seconds in 
native TSO. This pointed to the ISPLLIB as a tasklib so I removed everything 
from it and the timing under ISPF went from 10 down to 7 seconds and 4 to 1 
seconds.  Removing the STEPLIB got me to 2 and 0.5 seconds.

Still not subsecond so I suspect there is something in the z/VM setup which I'm 
not sure how to diagnose but am looking.

Thanks

Lionel B. Dyck <
Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com

"Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what you 
are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Kirk Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:20 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OMVS Tuning ?

Lionel,

STEPLIB=none has been around for a long time, and I see it documented, for 
example, in the V1R13 z/OS UNIX Planning book.

Can you offer any more details as to where the performance is bad or how
you notice?   I would assume that what you are describing is something
relative to the time required to do a fork/exec or spawn.   Which?  local
spawn?

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Lionel B Dyck  wrote:

> Found one major issue - the systems where the issue is are z/OS 2.1 
> and the STEPLIB=none variable looks to have been new in 2.2.  Reducing 
> the STEPLIB and ISPLLIB solved things.
>
>
> Lionel B. Dyck <
> Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com
>
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is 
> what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John 
> Wooden
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
> Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: OMVS Tuning ?
>
> I am working on a project where the omvs performance on some systems 
> is slower than one would like -definitely not sub-second.
>
>
>
> I'm looking for tuning suggestions.
>
>
>
> When under ISPF the elapsed time is more than double the elapsed time 
> when in native TSO.
>
>
>
> Note that the OMVS environment includes STEPLIB=none but my guess is 
> that the ISPLLIB may be the culprit when under ISPF - I just can't 
> prove that (yet).
>
>
>
> Thanks for any guidance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lionel B. Dyck <
> Website:  <http://www.lbdsoftware.com/> http://www.lbdsoftware.com
>
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is 
> what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John 
> Wooden
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: OMVS Tuning ?

2019-12-11 Thread Kirk Wolf

Lionel,

STEPLIB=none has been around for a long time, and I see it documented, for
example, in the V1R13 z/OS UNIX Planning book.

Can you offer any more details as to where the performance is bad or how
you notice?   I would assume that what you are describing is something
relative to the time required to do a fork/exec or spawn.   Which?  local
spawn?

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Lionel B Dyck  wrote:

> Found one major issue - the systems where the issue is are z/OS 2.1 and the
> STEPLIB=none variable looks to have been new in 2.2.  Reducing the STEPLIB
> and ISPLLIB solved things.
>
>
> Lionel B. Dyck <
> Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com
>
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what
> you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of
> Lionel B Dyck
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: OMVS Tuning ?
>
> I am working on a project where the omvs performance on some systems is
> slower than one would like -definitely not sub-second.
>
>
>
> I'm looking for tuning suggestions.
>
>
>
> When under ISPF the elapsed time is more than double the elapsed time when
> in native TSO.
>
>
>
> Note that the OMVS environment includes STEPLIB=none but my guess is that
> the ISPLLIB may be the culprit when under ISPF - I just can't prove that
> (yet).
>
>
>
> Thanks for any guidance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lionel B. Dyck <
> Website:  <http://www.lbdsoftware.com/> http://www.lbdsoftware.com
>
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what
> you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: OMVS Tuning ?

2019-12-11 Thread Lionel B Dyck

Found one major issue - the systems where the issue is are z/OS 2.1 and the
STEPLIB=none variable looks to have been new in 2.2.  Reducing the STEPLIB
and ISPLLIB solved things.


Lionel B. Dyck <
Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com

"Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what
you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Lionel B Dyck
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: OMVS Tuning ?

I am working on a project where the omvs performance on some systems is
slower than one would like -definitely not sub-second.

 

I'm looking for tuning suggestions.

 

When under ISPF the elapsed time is more than double the elapsed time when
in native TSO.

 

Note that the OMVS environment includes STEPLIB=none but my guess is that
the ISPLLIB may be the culprit when under ISPF - I just can't prove that
(yet).

 

Thanks for any guidance.

 

 

Lionel B. Dyck <
Website:  <http://www.lbdsoftware.com/> http://www.lbdsoftware.com

"Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what
you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden

 


--
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

OMVS Tuning ?

2019-12-11 Thread Lionel B Dyck

I am working on a project where the omvs performance on some systems is
slower than one would like -definitely not sub-second.

 

I'm looking for tuning suggestions.

 

When under ISPF the elapsed time is more than double the elapsed time when
in native TSO.

 

Note that the OMVS environment includes STEPLIB=none but my guess is that
the ISPLLIB may be the culprit when under ISPF - I just can't prove that
(yet).

 

Thanks for any guidance.

 

 

Lionel B. Dyck <
Website:   http://www.lbdsoftware.com

"Worry more about your character than your reputation.  Character is what
you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden

 


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

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

Re: OMVS Tuning ?

OMVS Tuning ?

6 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information