al Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Can you please clarify? Your first sentence seems to say that SVC 99 (or do you
mean Initiator)
The site is IBM Dallas; neither is installed.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
t DISP=NEW for DASD physically
> creates a dataset. whether it also writes an EOF depends on how you're
> configured.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 8:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Believe what you want
Hawkins
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Charles et al.
Using the TCB time reported in IEF032 to measure and analyse the net CPU
cost of program execution is a bit like a detective investigating a crime
without
on behalf of CM
Poncelet
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 6:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
FWIW I hesitate to believe that PASSED/DELETED implies that the temp
datasets were ever physically created on DASD - unless they were OPENed
for OUTPUT
m: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of CM
Poncelet
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 9:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
I mentioned "temp datasets" because Charles' post referred to them as such:
On 08/08/2019 20:17, Charles Mill
, August 9, 2019 12:08 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Once upon a memorable time, a data set allocated in (say) an IEFRB14 step got a
DSCB created complete with whatever DCB attributes were specified in JCL.
However, the 'data' on disk had no actual
On 2019-08-09 2:08 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
Then MVS was changed to simulate an OPEN/CLOSE on a new allocation so that a
later read would get immediate EOF.
My flakey memory says that is only for SMS-managed data sets - or at
least that was the case when it was originally brought in.
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 6:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
I mentioned "temp datasets" because Charles' post referred to them as such:
On 08/08/2019 20:17, Charles Mills wrote:
> I see
>
> IEF285I SYS
I mentioned "temp datasets" because Charles' post referred to them as such:
On 08/08/2019 20:17, Charles Mills wrote:
> I see
>
> IEF285I SYS19218.T143507.RA000.xxx00114.R0105346 PASSED
> IEF285I SYS19218.T143507.RA000.xxx00114.R0105347 PASSED
> IEF285I
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 23:52:25 +0100, CM Poncelet wrote:
>FWIW I hesitate to believe that PASSED/DELETED implies that the temp
>datasets were ever physically created on DASD - unless they were OPENed
>for OUTPUT in-between. I think the *physical* alloc happens only on an
>OPEN DCB with MACRF=(PM/L).
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of CM Poncelet
> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:34 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
>
> >From years ago, I *think* an IEFBR14 step with DISP=(,C
Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2019 02:25
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
I have a batch program that does several SVC 99 allocations. They are fairly
vanilla temporary dataset allocations, or at least that is how I think of
them. I am
: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
>From years ago, I *think* an IEFBR14 step with DISP=(,CATLG) [or
(,PASS)] does not physically allocate a dataset on a VOLSER but only
registers it in the usercat. Have you checked whet
List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:25:52 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>The Initiator does
on behalf of
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Which simply means that if UNIT and VOLUME are not supplied then it looks in
the catalog, where it detects a MIGRAT value if the data set
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Which simply means that if UNIT and VOLUME are not supplied then it looks in
the catalog, where it detects a MIGRAT value if the data set
everyone is.’
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: 07 August 2019 21:15
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:25:52 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>The Initiator d
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:25:52 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>The Initiator does not check that the data set exists; ...
>
... and yet it checks for whether it's migrated.
-- gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Discussion List on behalf of
David Spiegel
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
That's true for DASD, but, not for Tape, IIRC.
On 2019-08-07 12:53, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> They say that the memory is the second th
0%7C637007936258345512sdata=VvGKdsg2Spkk4Kq0WeVM3amVpcusMCi8yL%2BZEPkXYNw%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> CM Poncelet
> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:34 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU time c
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of CM
Poncelet
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
>From years ago, I *think* an IEFBR14 step with DISP=(,CATLG) [or
(,PASS)] d
On 2019-08-07 6:36 PM, Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw wrote:
However, I think standard TSO ALLOCATE does perform that check
Yes, I was probably basing my opinion on my observations of the
behaviour of the ALLOCATE command.
Cheers,
Greg
guess not, but who
> knows.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:45 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPU tim
on.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:35 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Greg,
I think you'll find that whether SVC
Discussion List On Behalf Of
Greg Price
Sent: 07 August 2019 03:00
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
On 2019-08-07 5:08 AM, Carmen Vitullo wrote:
> I suspect dynamic allocation may be doing more that the IEFBR14 possibly?
Well, DYNAL
On 2019-08-07 5:08 AM, Carmen Vitullo wrote:
I suspect dynamic allocation may be doing more that the IEFBR14 possibly?
Well, DYNALLOC is certainly doing more that the job step initiation when
it comes to allocation.
Device allocation at step-start time is a largely CPU-bound affair with
Engelbrecht
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 4:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Charles Mills wrote:
>I am seeing a CPU time of about .0025 CPU seconds per allocation on a z196.
>The entire job lock, stock and barrel uses (according to IEF032
Charles Mills wrote:
>I am seeing a CPU time of about .0025 CPU seconds per allocation on a z196.
>The entire job lock, stock and barrel uses (according to IEF032I) .00 CPU
>seconds.
What type of CPU time?
SMF30CPT - TCB?
SMF30CPS - SRB?
SMF30ISB – SRB CPU time for initiator work?
Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Thanks. I don't have MXG but I am super familiar with SMF concepts, reading the
SMF documentation, "decoding" SM
Got it. Thanks,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Yes, allocations in your JCL
knows.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:25:05 -0400
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Are you saying -- I am trying to clarify; I
I would have to dig before I can provide a detailed answer.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Thanks. I don't have MXG
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
SMF type 30's contain the start and end time of the allocation process for the
initiator.
I cannot specifically recall whether the CPU time for this process is broken
out into a specific bucket, or can be calculated.
I you have MXG, Bar
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Can you please clarify? Your first sentence seems to say that SVC 99 (or do you
mean Initiator) CPU time
Vitullo
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Mills"
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:02:25 PM
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
Can you please clarify? Your first sentence seems to say that SVC 99 (or do you
mean Initiator
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Allan Staller
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:54 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
This allocation time can be calculated from SMF type 30.
I am sure time is tracked. I am not sure the associated CPU is tracked
: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
The key word is "apparently". Unless you can track the CPU time used by the
Initiator, you have no way to know which is more efficient.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mas
: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:25:05 -0400, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>OTOH I have an IEFBR14 batch job on the same machine that allocates 15
>temporary datasets in JCL. The entire job lock, stock and barrel uses
>(according to IEF032I) .00 CPU seconds.
gust 6, 2019 12:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:25:05 -0400, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>OTOH I have an IEFBR14 batch job on the same machine that allocates 15
>temporary datasets in JCL. The entire job lock, stock
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:25:05 -0400, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>OTOH I have an IEFBR14 batch job on the same machine that allocates 15
>temporary datasets in JCL. The entire job lock, stock and barrel uses
>(according to IEF032I) .00 CPU seconds. Can anyone explain why JCL
>allocation is apparently
f
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation
I have a batch program that does several SVC 99 allocations. They are fairly
vanilla temporary dataset allocations, or at least that is how I think of
them. I am seeing
I have a batch program that does several SVC 99 allocations. They are fairly
vanilla temporary dataset allocations, or at least that is how I think of
them. I am seeing a CPU time of about .0025 CPU seconds per allocation on a
z196. Is this what others would expect, or does it seem high?
OTOH I
45 matches
Mail list logo
