Does anyone have an opinion as to whether or not VOLCATs should use ECS ?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/16/2005
at 12:43 PM, Rolf Ernst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That's because TSO spawns a subtask for every command.
No. It's because the TMP waits for the subtask to complete. Also, note
that I was suggesting multiple address spaces to avoid running out of
virtual
Bill Fairchild wrote:
In a message dated 7/13/2005 8:35:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient?
No. Yes. On what processor?
Even in the S/360 days the answer would depend on the box. Likewise SR
versus SLR vs LA.
Right
In a message dated 7/14/2005 1:25:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill Fairchild wrote:
However, even though it is not of much value, it is certainly of
interest.
If you really want to know how to speed instructions up, you must be
prepared
to read lots of
In a message dated 7/14/2005 5:33:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The model 30 had a simple set of numbers with
no variables. Load Address was something like 19 microseconds no matter
what.
Not quite, IIRC if the index register is not zero then add a
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That would introduce new
potentiality for errors and would increase the overhead
for everything other than IEFBR14. How expensive is one
ATTACH and how much are you willing to pay to get rid
of it?
Oh boo hoo! If you're afraid of the -potential- for errors,
Martin Kline wrote:
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That would introduce new
potentiality for errors and would increase the overhead
for everything other than IEFBR14. How expensive is one
ATTACH and how much are you willing to pay to get rid
of it?
Oh boo hoo! If you're afraid of the
One interesting result was that one MVCL for 1K takes about
as long as four MVCs of 256; below that MVCs are faster on
every processor I tested.
Probably not as surprising as you think. There is only one
move instruction on the z Series. MVCL and other complex
moves are implemented in
I'd estimate we use IEFBR14 10,000 times per day.
Correction - after further analysis, we run IEFBR14
over 30,000 times per day. This seems high.
Does anyone else have actual counts?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended
One of the companies I worked for had a standard that was required for
their restart procedures. Output datasets were created in iefbr14
step and then referenced as disp=old in the program step. All the
programs were checkpoint restartable but not with IBM checkpoint. The
default CA7/11 restart
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/12/2005
at 10:34 AM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I find that when I go to ISPF 3.4 and type 'D' before a few dozen
data set names, my terminal is unavailable for an uncomfortably long
time during processing.
That ties into the issue of allowing multiple
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/11/2005
at 04:26 PM, Richard Peurifoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Many people use this to create/delete datasets.
Or, at least, so they believe. At least it's a less expensive
placeholder than IEHPROGM.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 07/11/2005
at 04:51 PM, Steve Grimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient?
No. Yes. On what processor?
Even in the S/360 days the answer would depend on the box. Likewise SR
versus SLR vs LA.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,
In a message dated 7/13/2005 8:35:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient?
No. Yes. On what processor?
Even in the S/360 days the answer would depend on the box. Likewise SR
versus SLR vs LA.
Right on, Shmuel.
I learned
Bill Fairchild wrote:
However, even though it is not of much value, it is certainly of interest.
If you really want to know how to speed instructions up, you must be prepared
to read lots of highly arcane technical papers on instruction processing
units, pipelines, instruction caches,
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible
(SR R15,R15 BR R14
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, There is no
program, just set return code zero? It could avoid all the setup for
calling IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery,
etc.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that
says, There is no program, just set return code
zero? It could avoid all the setup for calling
IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area,
recovery, etc.
Is this comment just noise or do you seriously expect
IBM to change/eliminate IEBGENER?
Please reread my suggestion. It says nothing about
IEBGENER. I also wouldn't expect anyone to eliminate
IEFBR14. Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified. Of course, still perform any JCL functions
like dataset allocation and deletion.
I
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, There is no
program, just set return code zero? It could avoid all the setup for
calling IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery, etc.
...
Eh?
IEFBR14 is simpler to maintain than a special case in JCL processing
(especially
...
Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified.
...
Why code the special case?
What we have works; why complicate it with special code paths?
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming
Is this just noise or do you seriously expect
IBM to implement this?
It's a serious suggestion, but I do not expect IBM to
give it serious consideration. There's no money to make.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely
Why code the special case?
What we have works; why complicate it with special code paths?
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain
I've tried teaching them better (use IDCAMS), but
this is the way that I've done it since 1975 and
I'm not changing!
What we have works; why complicate it?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
On 11-Jul-2005, Abbacabba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IEFBR14 is one of our most USED program with ~1500 uses a day.
You won't gain anything by trying to make a more efficient IEFBR14. But that
isn't your goal. We don't have any business needs to have IEFBR14 run. What
we have are needs to
programs: any better replacements out there?
IDCAMS, IEFBR14
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 00:00 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I didn't intend to talk down, but I know many APPDEV-types
who think of this as the only way to create/delete.
I once had an applications guy (a new hire) ask me where the IEFBR14
...
Did you tell him about the IEFBR15 utility?
...
IBM used to use one in the early days of bench-mark(ett)ing to get rid of the
low utilisation effect.
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming
--
Rob Scott wrote:
If only there was an easy way to do this ...h..
How about a program that just sets the return code to zero and returned
to the usereven better than that - why don't we put it in LPA so
that there is no LOAD/DELETE overhead.
Or one of my favorites:
Richard Pinion wrote:
Sorry I have the copy write on that program!!!
OK. Just so long as you don't own the copyright.
--
-
| Edward E. Jaffe||
| Mgr, Research Development|
I guess I failed spelling, copy write!!
I have the copyright on that program, ABEND806.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/05 12:03 PM
Sorry I have the copy write on that program!!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/05 12:02 PM
Rob Scott wrote:
If only there was an easy way to do this ...h..
How
In a recent note, Martin Kline said:
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:43:18 -0500
It's a serious suggestion, but I do not expect IBM to
give it serious consideration. There's no money to make.
IBM will respond to serious customer requirements. But you
need to make a business case. You
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:02:01 -0700, Edward E. Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or one of my favorites:
//***/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806
This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
-Original Message-
From: Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:34:34
To:IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements out there? IDCAMS,
IEFBR14
In a recent note, Martin Kline said:
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:43:18
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I find that when I go to ISPF 3.4 and type 'D' before a few
dozen data set names, my terminal is unavailable for an
uncomfortably long time during processing.
I used to experience similar delays when deleting large numbers of data
sets. Then came Enhanced Catalog
Sorry about that.
Some times the (fat) finger is quicker than the eye.
-Original Message-
From: Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00
To:IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements out there? IDCAMS,
IEFBR14
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:48:12 -0700, Edward E. Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Issue the 'f catalog,ecshr(status)' system command to find out if you're
using this important catalog performance enhancement.
After first asking yourself am I running a parallel sysplex? and
am I not sharing catalogs
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward E. Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements
out there? IDCAMS, IEFBR14
snip
Or one
On 12-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward E. Jaffe) wrote:
Or one of my favorites:
//***/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806
This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
Especially
Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
Mark Zelden wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:02:01 -0700, Edward E. Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or one of my favorites:
//***/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806
This job step works as
Mark Zelden wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:57:33 -0700, Edward E. Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Issue the 'f catalog,ecshr(status)' system command to find out if you're
using this important catalog performance enhancement.
After first asking yourself am I running a parallel
On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
...
Yes, but special kludges are NOT the way to go.
Boundary conditions are the great bug-a-boo!
Ted,
Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
Ed
No one according the Mr. Bill back in 80-something-or-other...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements
In a message dated 7/12/2005 3:43:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
Ed
Same department that only needs 5 M/F worldwide(for everybody!).
--
For
In a message dated 7/12/2005 3:43:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
I squeezed all my application code into a 16K model 30 in 1967, and there
was still 6K for the DOS/360 Supervisor. We had oceans of core available.
...
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
..
...
The above was not from me.
It was included as quoted text so I could pontificate on it.
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming
--
For IBM-MAIN
...
Ted,
Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
...
I guess my point is not getting across.
I'm saying a simple load of IEFBR14 is better than re-writing JES to have
special cases.
No more! No less!
The fewer boundary conditions we have, the fewer bugs!
De-Bugging:
The art of removing
...
Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
...
With QEMM V7 I got over 690.
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
From: Edward E. Jaffe
...
Speaking of parallel sysplex, I just set one up for testing purposes
using z/VM's Coupling Facility Simulation feature which neither uses
nor supports real links to real coupling facilities. Though it loads and
uses the CFCC LIC from the hardware, z/VM prevents CFCC
On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
...
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
..
...
The above was not from me.
It was included as quoted text so I could pontificate on it.
-teD
Ted,
Say hi to the pope as well;_0
Ed
...
Say hi to the pope as well
...
I meant it by the second meaning:
(V): to deliver dogmatic opinions
(Interesting roots for the Pope the opinion)
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming
--
For
ibm-main wrote:
From: Edward E. Jaffe
...
Speaking of parallel sysplex, I just set one up for testing purposes
using z/VM's Coupling Facility Simulation feature which neither uses
nor supports real links to real coupling facilities. Though it loads and
uses the CFCC LIC from the hardware,
it.) And, because of the way z/VM fools the CFCC code, I can probably
set up dozens of test parallel sysplexes before my system starts to run
out of gas. I'm impressed by it, even if you're not.
Wasn't obvious you were talking only z/VM.
In the real world the active polling issue of the CFCC
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible (SR R15,R15 BR
R14, well I guess you
could remove the SR but that wouln't save much). It is also in LPA, so
you don't even have to
load it when you run it. Many people use this to create/delete
datasets. The only thing I think
you can do
...
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible (SR R15,R15 BR
R14, well I guess you
could remove the SR but that wouln't save much).
...
IEFBR14 used to not have the SR instruction, but then the contents
of R15 were causing problems because that was/is the RC.
So, IEFBR14 became
Re: SR R15,R15
Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient? Or are 32 bit subtractions
now single cycle instructions?
(Just curious.)
Stg
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Abbacabba wrote:
We have switched to ICEGENER over the IEB version and I was wondering
if any type of replacement or better program existed for these two.
DFSORT's ICEGENER is a better replacement for IEBGENER. It uses
DFSORT copy when possible and uses IEBGENER when necessary
(e.g. when
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
..
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible (SR R15,R15 BR
R14, well I guess you
could remove the SR but that wouln't save much).
..
IEFBR14 used to not have the SR instruction, but then the contents
of R15 were causing problems because that was/is the RC.
...
Yes, I realize IEFBR14 doesn't actually do
allocation/creation/deletion/catalog/uncatalog.
The INTIATOR/TERMINATOR process the dispostion on the DD statements and calls
other system routines to accomplish this. But many people use it to for this
purpose.
...
I do too. I didn't intend to
57 matches
Mail list logo
