@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: TIOT
On 5/4/2011 12:20 PM, Capon, Diego wrote:
Has anybody changed default TIOT(32) to TIOT(64) in ALLOCxx member of
sys1.parmlib?
Any issues?
None with IBM or vendor code, but you might have old, old code
around that uses LH on DCBTIOT. If you don't have local
assembler
I know of one installation that experienced an increase in pageing activity.
-- Original Message --
From: Coyne, Paul paul.co...@uk.experian.com
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: TIOT
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:03 +0100
Ditto. We did this last year and the only
On 5/4/2011 12:20 PM, Capon, Diego wrote:
Has anybody changed default TIOT(32) to TIOT(64) in ALLOCxx member of
sys1.parmlib?
Any issues?
None with IBM or vendor code, but you might have old, old code
around that uses LH on DCBTIOT. If you don't have local
assembler code, than no problem
I seem to recall that the TIOT was chained from the TCB.
Now does that mean that each TCB (within and Address Space) will be allocated a
TIOT regardless of any dataset allocated by that TCB ?
2nd
Has anyone had to create a Larger TIOT for a specific Task (TCB)
by Obtaining storage in the right
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:38:13 GMT esst...@juno.com esst...@juno.com wrote:
:I seem to recall that the TIOT was chained from the TCB.
:Now does that mean that each TCB (within and Address Space) will be allocated
a TIOT regardless of any dataset allocated by that TCB ?
Typically the TIOT
, have you looked into using the XTIOT for dynamic allocations? For
ages now, VSAM data sets can be allocated using the XTIOT and uncaptured
UCBs. As of z/OS 1.12 almost all other access methods also support XTIOT
and uncaptured UCBs. XTIOT allocations do not use entries in the regular
TIOT
The performance issue that I remember had to do with any software product that
creates a large number of dynamic allocations. Each such allocation requires a
new entry in the TIOT for the DDNAME. One example of such a product is DB2.
Periodically SMF records may be written to record
On Mar 10, 2011, at 08:06, Bill Fairchild wrote:
... The original implementation of SMF only recorded EXCP counts when the
file was closed, which will never happen if the job never ends.
Just curious -- would an orderly system shutdown flush such accounting
records, perhaps by sending a STOP
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:41 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: TIOT
On Mar 10, 2011, at 08:06, Bill Fairchild wrote:
... The original implementation of SMF only recorded EXCP counts when the
file was closed, which will never happen if the job never ends
On 3/10/2011 7:38 AM, esst...@juno.com wrote:
The reason why I ask this question - I was informed that
increasing the TIOT parmlib parameter from 32 to 64 created
performance problems. What ? The change was not made by a
CICS nor MVS Sys Prog, but from a DB2/DBA. Know one can tell
me what
The OP wrote:
| The change was not made by a CICS nor MVS Sys Prog, but from a DB2/DBA.
Thus--unless of course the version of DB2 in use in his shop is improbably
old--this issue is moot. As others have already noted, the XTIOT was developed
chiefly for DB2; and its use by DB2 obviates TIOT
, the XTIOT was
developed chiefly for DB2; and its use by DB2 obviates TIOT-sizing problems
related to DB2 and any need for a DB2 DBA to make the TIOT proper larger.
Others may of course go along for the ride, electing to use the XTIOT (as
DFSORT has already done). There is BSAM, QSAM and BPAM
David Bond Wrote
First I would ask: why do you need so many active allocations at once?
It is a CICS Region - I was hoping I could expand the size of the TIOT via a
program.
-- Original Message --
From: David Bond david-b...@comcast.net
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Increasing the size of the TIOT on the fly is not supported. If you do, then
all I can say is: Son, you're on your own. (anybody recognize the reference?)
Here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/quotes (not for the easily offended.
Or the not-so-easily offended - very vulgar language
: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Bond
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:24 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: TIOT
Are they VSAM files? If so, the CICS should long ago have
been changed to
use XTIOT allocations
15 matches
Mail list logo
