allan.stal...@kbmg.com (Staller, Allan) writes:
There can also be performance advantages from GC. GC moves objects
together in storage, making it much more likely that your application
data will be in the processor caches. If GC keeps your data in
processor cache it will perform much better
Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote
apl\360 would allocate new storage for every assignment statement,
quickly using every available location in workspace ... and then it would
collect
everything in contiguous storage (garbage collect) and then start all over
again..
This wasn't too bad with
The usual C malloc() keeps track of allocated memory with data just
before each allocated block.
As well as I understand it, GETMAIN works similarly.
(snip)
I believe that there have been some improvements along the way, but
don't know about them.
At least since MVS/XA (circa 1982),
Tx Tom.
Is this (recompile) is sufficient for cobol ii under Cics 5.1?
ITschak
נשלח מה-iPad שלי
ב-7 באוג׳ 2015, בשעה 22:11, Tom Ross tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com כתב/ה:
We have a mixed COBOL environment involving VS COBOL 2 programs compiled
with RESident. We do not want to recompile
Don't want to work on a Friday afternoon, so a question for you all...
I come from the VSE world where COBOL still does not have a LOCAL-STORAGE
SECTION, so our code doesn't use that new feature (new within the last 20
years, I guess!). I know generally for a subroutine when you would want to
In languages where the default is automatic (PL/I and C, for example),
it is usual for variables in MAIN to be automatic. The compiler compiles MAIN
the
same way, with a special routine that does some setup before calling actual
MAIN.
In the case of PL/I with multitasking, it is possible for
Begging time again. :-)
I am the software developer for the IPv6/VSE product.
Every time there is a new z/OS release, I need to acquire a copy of the
latest z/OS version of the EZASMI assembler macro so I can compare it to
what is used on VSE so that I can catch any compatibility issues
I would think you could get a copy if you are a preferred partner with IBM or
have proper association with IBM.
For a customer to provide you a copy of that - might be a bad thing.
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: Tony Thigpen t...@vse2pdf.com
Sent: Aug 7, 2015 2:51 PM
To:
On 2015-08-07 15:37, Glen Hermannsfeldt (Contractor) wrote:
... Static variables are generated using an appropriately named CSECT.
If the program is reentrant and refreshable static variables must be
generated in obtained storage.
-- gil
I am an IBM partner with all the legal paperwork in place. It's just
that getting a copy via VSE development will take forever. The last copy
I got from them was 4 years old!
Tony Thigpen
Lizette Koehler wrote on 08/07/2015 06:41 PM:
I would think you could get a copy if you are a preferred
Hi Ron,
it seems you want only current week unmatched records
Is the key up to the number at the end of you post or it's only the first
part between | ?
I've tried the same (I've not the part of the record up to 533) and it
seems I've obtained the correct result:
//ST002EXEC
On 6/08/2015 12:49 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
All that said, I see way too many cases of operators/sysprogs/managers
perversely trying to economize on memory, some perhaps remembering the
good old days when Hello World! required only a few bytes. For better
or worse, that hasn't been true for at
I suppose one could do a internet search for IBM PDSE JCL GENERATION
And find the following link
http://www-304.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.idad400/pdsegenerations.htm
or (watch the wrap)
z/OS 2.1.0z/OS DFSMSz/OS DFSMS Using Data SetsNon-VSAM Access to Data Sets
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:40:38 -0500, John McKown wrote:
Warning: This is about an IBM product called Data Set Commander. But it
has some interesting stuff about things like the new PDSE generation
Should this make a VMS expatriate feel much at home?
Is there JCL syntax for PDSE member
There have been lots of war stories from some of the big JVM users like
Twitter where long running GC cycles have resulted in fail-over being
triggered where a node has been marked as unresponsive. In distributed
systems this can lead to
serious problems similar to network partitions. It's no
I have not looked at the latest info but I still believe there is a
*LIMIT* to the amount of MS that one can buy per box. I also think
there is a limit to MVS MS. I don't recall what it is but (they did
increase it) there is still a practical limitation as to MVS MS.
I am not suggesting
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:55:49 -0400, John Eells wrote:
(Jim Mulder) wrote:
For a z13 machine, the limits are 10TB on the box, and
4TB in a z/OS partition.
...on z/OS V2.2, and planned for V2.1 at V2.2 GA. Still 1TB for z/OS V1.13.
7) Provide a decade of addressing. Computers never
The usual C malloc() keeps track of allocated memory with data just
before each allocated block.
As well as I understand it, GETMAIN works similarly.
As with the note about garbage collection, that tends to cause a lot
of page-in references going
through the linked-list of memory
On 8/7/2015 at 12:28 PM, Jim Mulder d10j...@us.ibm.com wrote:
For a z13 machine, the limits are 10TB on the box, and
4TB in a z/OS partition.
Is the 4TB a PR/SM limitation? Or can you define even larger LPARs? The
supported limits for Linux are considerably higher than 4TB.
Mark Post
d10j...@us.ibm.com (Jim Mulder) wrote:
For a z13 machine, the limits are 10TB on the box, and
4TB in a z/OS partition.
...on z/OS V2.2, and planned for V2.1 at V2.2 GA. Still 1TB for z/OS V1.13.
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com
We have a mixed COBOL environment involving VS COBOL 2 programs compiled
with RESident. We do not want to recompile tons of programs and considering
the option to relink the COBOL load modulwe to replace the stub module
(igzebst) with an updated one.
1) You do not have to recompile, but you do
The usual C malloc() keeps track of allocated memory with data just before each
allocated block.
As well as I understand it, GETMAIN works similarly.
As with the note about garbage collection, that tends to cause a lot of page-in
references going
through the linked-list of memory blocks.
I
Ok. this is working only when i changed the control card as below
JOINKEYS F1=F1,FIELDS=(1,44,A),SORTED,NOSEQCK
So just wanted to know whether we need to sort the file before the JOIN
operations
Thanks
Ron T
--
For IBM-MAIN
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Cheryl Watson che...@watsonwalker.com
wrote:
Hi John,
You might consider changing modifying your stance when it comes to the z13
processors. Although the z13 actually has a slower chip, the processor is
faster (partly) because of how they utilize memory. In
Warning: This is about an IBM product called Data Set Commander. But it
has some interesting stuff about things like the new PDSE generation
members. Hopefully not objectionable. No, I'm really not a shill, but
gratuities are accepted! grin/
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:59:00 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote:
There can also be performance advantages from GC.
Were one to be slightly nefarious, one might suggest that if the JVM was doing
its (GC) job properly, there would be very little code left to run.
Not an intrinsic shortcoming of the
Would'nt the garbage collection cause page-in references as objects are
collected and co-located?
Thus negatively affecting performance on page sensitive (e.g. CICS)
middleware/applications.
Seems the advice to avoid garbage collection is sound to me (from a performance
perspective).
27 matches
Mail list logo
