Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Martin Packer]

Bill Woodger scribbled :-) That may depend on how you take this claim: 
"[ABO] ... produces a functionally equivalent executable program".

This is yet another reason why I'd like the ABO folks to say more about 
the kinds of program transformations they do.

Cheers, Martin

Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Cloud & Systems Performance, IBM

+44-7802-245-584

email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com

Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker

Blog: 
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker

Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): 
https://developer.ibm.com/tv/category/mpt/



From:   Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date:   13/04/2016 12:01
Subject:    Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>



ABO should be useful for sites not going to V5/V6 "anytime soon"

The following presumes a "12" or "13" system, and z/OS 2.1 or higher.

1. Staying with pre-V4.2, bimbling along with out-of-service compilers

Pre-Enterprise COBOL programs, would need recompile with Enterprise COBOL 
to allow ABO. For any already Enterprise COBOL executables, the ABO will 
operate and give benefit.

2. Migrating to V4.2

Even after recompiling with V4.2, ABO would give benefits, access to "new" 
instructions, and advanced optimisation techniques.

ABO could be useful to sites migrating to V5/V6

1. Really rapid migration, probably no point in ABO ("Really rapid" is 
subjective).

2. Long process of migration, ABO would be useful for heavy CPU-users 
which are scheduled to migrate a year or more down the track ("Long" is 
subjective).

An interesting question is whether, or to what extent, you "test" 
optimised programs.

That may depend on how you take this claim: "[ABO] ... produces a 
functionally equivalent executable program".

I know that there are some people/sites who don't "trust" the existing 
optimisation in the compilers. Obviously they are not going to be 
ABO-users anyway.

IBM's advice for the use of OPT (even prior to V5) is to "whack it on just 
before you go into Production". I've never liked that, but not because I 
don't trust the optimiser. I don't trust the application code :-) Anyone 
who has ever encountered an accidental overlay of executable code is 
probably aware that "incidental" overwriting can also be occurring. And it 
can be so incidental as to "work to specification" until something changes 
in the code and now-significant code gets overwritten.

I don't want a program to go through N stages of "testing" and then have 
the object code changed (so that something may become significant) just 
before tossing it into Production. So I recommend OPT after initial 
program-testing.

So, should programs after ABOing be "tested", to partially test ABO? 
Should ABO be "tested" in isolation (a wider coverage of things in a 
shorter period of time) or - perhaps taking ABO-stability into account (no 
"program doesn't work" fixes yet for ABO) - just go with the flow?

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



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

ABO should be useful for sites not going to V5/V6 "anytime soon"

The following presumes a "12" or "13" system, and z/OS 2.1 or higher.

1. Staying with pre-V4.2, bimbling along with out-of-service compilers

Pre-Enterprise COBOL programs, would need recompile with Enterprise COBOL to 
allow ABO. For any already Enterprise COBOL executables, the ABO will operate 
and give benefit.

2. Migrating to V4.2

Even after recompiling with V4.2, ABO would give benefits, access to "new" 
instructions, and advanced optimisation techniques.

ABO could be useful to sites migrating to V5/V6

1. Really rapid migration, probably no point in ABO ("Really rapid" is 
subjective).

2. Long process of migration, ABO would be useful for heavy CPU-users which are 
scheduled to migrate a year or more down the track ("Long" is subjective).

An interesting question is whether, or to what extent, you "test" optimised 
programs.

That may depend on how you take this claim: "[ABO] ... produces a functionally 
equivalent executable program".

I know that there are some people/sites who don't "trust" the existing 
optimisation in the compilers. Obviously they are not going to be ABO-users 
anyway.

IBM's advice for the use of OPT (even prior to V5) is to "whack it on just 
before you go into Production". I've never liked that, but not because I don't 
trust the optimiser. I don't trust the application code :-) Anyone who has ever 
encountered an accidental overlay of executable code is probably aware that 
"incidental" overwriting can also be occurring. And it can be so incidental as 
to "work to specification" until something changes in the code and 
now-significant code gets overwritten.

I don't want a program to go through N stages of "testing" and then have the 
object code changed (so that something may become significant) just before 
tossing it into Production. So I recommend OPT after initial program-testing.

So, should programs after ABOing be "tested", to partially test ABO? Should ABO 
be "tested" in isolation (a wider coverage of things in a shorter period of 
time) or - perhaps taking ABO-stability into account (no "program doesn't work" 
fixes yet for ABO) - just go with the flow?

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Timothy Sipples]

Al Sherkow wrote:
>Do you have a lot of JAVA and WebSphere in your shop? ABO will
>be licensed based on those MSUs too.

Not always or even very often. For example, Solution Editions are outside
scope (unless they have EC3/4-compiled COBOL -- rare but possible), and so
are zIIP MSUs and non-peak MSUs.

I'd offer this advice instead: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO) is likely
attractive if you have at least "non-trivial" peak COBOL workloads compiled
with Enterprise COBOL Version 3 and/or Version 4 in at least one z/OS
"pricing-plex"(*) in your enterprise, and if you are not shifting most or
all of those peak COBOL workloads relatively soon (or sooner) to Enterprise
COBOL Version 5 or higher compiled code. ABO can also be attractive if you
have CPU-bound batch COBOL workloads (compiled with Enterprise COBOL V3
and/or V4) and if you are looking to reduce batch processing times, and/or
in a few rare cases when elapsed transaction times are critical (e.g.
credit/debit card authorizations) -- again assuming you are not shifting
relatively soon (or sooner) to Enterprise COBOL Version 5 or higher
compiled code. Note that the EC3/4-compiled code can be vendor-supplied,
in-house, or both. All EC3/4 COBOL run-times count, including COBOL stored
procedures in DB2. Also take into account older COBOL code that is being
migrated to EC3/4 (or should be, or will be).

Sorry that's a bit wordy, but I think it's a reasonably comprehensive
summary in one paragraph. "Java bad" for these purposes? No, that's
oversimplified at least. Just focus on the EC3/4 COBOL (including
vendor-supplied) and its contributions to peak, to batch elapsed time, and
to elapsed transaction times. That's conceptually simple, too, but also
better advice in my view.

(*) This isn't *quite* right either. There are cases when less than a
"pricing-plex" is enough, but now I'm really getting into the weeds. :)
However, I'm tempted to put "LPAR" here for these reasons. "LPAR" is
certainly enough for a "merits investigation" standard.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

I was hasty in commenting about the requirement for PDSE optimized load 
modules. The manual states this:

OUT
Specifies one output module, or a PDS(E) for multiple output modules when
wildcards are given in the mem_wc specifier of the IN option. 

Guess I overlooked the parens. I allocated mine as PDSE, but as I said earlier, 
that is not an issue in our shop. So I allocated another load library as PDS 
and retraced my steps. Everything worked fine. So kumbaya. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Nims,Alva John (Al)
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

I agree, the only instance that it had to be a PDSe was for the listing.

The other outputs talk about a "PDS(E)" and that implies to be either PDS or 
PDSE.

Al Nims
University of Florida

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of George Young
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

On 4/12/2016 7:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> failed to mention before that ABO wants a PDSE to hold optimized load 
> modules

I don't think so.

At least, in the User's Guide at

http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/z-compilers-optimizer

it mentions a PDSE for holding a listing, but I don't find any restriction on 
the output executable other than

1) if the input is a program object, the output will probably need to be

2) if the input is a load module and the output module grows too big, the 
output will need to be a program object

George

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Nims,Alva John (Al)]

I agree, the only instance that it had to be a PDSe was for the listing.

The other outputs talk about a "PDS(E)" and that implies to be either PDS or 
PDSE.

Al Nims
University of Florida

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of George Young
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

On 4/12/2016 7:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> failed to mention before that ABO wants a PDSE to hold optimized load 
> modules

I don't think so.

At least, in the User's Guide at

http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/z-compilers-optimizer

it mentions a PDSE for holding a listing, but I don't find any restriction on 
the output executable other than

1) if the input is a program object, the output will probably need to be

2) if the input is a load module and the output module grows too big, the 
output will need to be a program object

George

--
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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[George Young]

On 4/12/2016 7:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:

failed to mention before that ABO wants a PDSE to hold optimized load modules


I don't think so.

At least, in the User's Guide at

http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/z-compilers-optimizer

it mentions a PDSE for holding a listing, but I don't find any 
restriction on the output executable other than


1) if the input is a program object, the output will probably need to be

2) if the input is a load module and the output module grows too big, 
the output will need to be a program object


George

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Nims,Alva John (Al)]

Are you sure that a PDSe is a requirement?  I am at IBMTechU in Atlanta, GA 
right now and I was having dinner with my IBM reps and we happen to talk about 
ABO.  Two things mentioned were:
#1. It is for those who do not want to convert to COBOL V5 yet.
#2. Unlike COBOL V5, the binaries do not have to be in a PDSe.

Al Nims
University of Florida

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Uh, failed to mention before that ABO wants a PDSE to hold optimized load 
modules. Fortunately for us, no sharing issues. If PDSE is a major obstacle to 
moving forward, then ABO does not skirt that problem. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Gibney, David Allen
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Also those who have issues moving to PDS/E loadlibs for COBOL 5.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:01 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> IBM is pitching to two audiences:
> 
> 1. Don't have or are not sure have the current source code.
> 2. No time to test. IBM is touting reduced testing requirements. 
> Opinions may differ.
> 
> I am no expert but if I were going to migrate my COBOL environment I 
> would go to V6. I don't think V5 offers any advantages over V6. V5 has 
> some problems apparently with very large source programs, such as 
> code- generator-produced source, which are ameliorated by V6's use of 
> AMODE64 (for the compiler itself, not for compiled programs).
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:26 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?  
> We don't have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.

--
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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Al Sherkow]

Shops really need to pay attention to the licensing of this product. It is an 
IPLA product with a One time Charge to get started and then annual S 
payments. It is licensed not just based on where you use the product to 
optimize COBOL.  From the announcement letter provided earlier (in the US 
215-407) it is "z/OS-based". This means it is charged based on the z/OS 
billable MSUs in the PricingPlex if you are sub-capacity IPLA; or all your 
installed z/OS MSUs if you are not sub-capacity for IPLA. You may be able to 
negotiate a discount. 

Once you do move to COBOL V5 and/or COBOL V6 and you do recompile your programs 
then there is very little need for ABO unless you want it to handled the 
architectural of various hardware levels. If you are moving to COBOL soon then 
you're paying a lot of money for a short period of time when you're using ABO.  

Be sure to read Martin Packer's post on this thread about how much COBOL is 
really being used in CICS transaction. There is a lot of wisdom in Martin's 
post. Do you have a lot of JAVA and WebSphere in your shop? ABO will be 
licensed based on those MSUs too. 

Before you start the trial, you might as well have IBM or some friendly 
consultant run the numbers for you to see what licensing it will cost in 
dollars (or you local currency).  

You'll undoubtedly save CPU resources with ABO. But you only reduce your 
software charges if it truly contributes to lowering the Simultaneous 4HRA of 
your sub-capacity software products. 

Al Sherkow, I/S Management Strategies, Ltd.
Consulting Expertise on IBM Workload License Charges (WLC),
LPARs and LCS Software
Seminars on IBM Mainframe Software Pricing since 2003!
+1 414 332-3062
www.sherkow.com

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Gibney, David Allen]

Uh, ok shoulda known. Running a z9 here anyway, so neither is promising at this 
time :)

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:50 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> Uh, failed to mention before that ABO wants a PDSE to hold optimized load
> modules. Fortunately for us, no sharing issues. If PDSE is a major obstacle to
> moving forward, then ABO does not skirt that problem.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-302-7535 Office
> robin...@sce.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Gibney, David Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:45 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> Also those who have issues moving to PDS/E loadlibs for COBOL 5.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Charles Mills
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:01 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> >
> > IBM is pitching to two audiences:
> >
> > 1. Don't have or are not sure have the current source code.
> > 2. No time to test. IBM is touting reduced testing requirements.
> > Opinions may differ.
> >
> > I am no expert but if I were going to migrate my COBOL environment I
> > would go to V6. I don't think V5 offers any advantages over V6. V5 has
> > some problems apparently with very large source programs, such as
> > code- generator-produced source, which are ameliorated by V6's use of
> > AMODE64 (for the compiler itself, not for compiled programs).
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:26 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> >
> > If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?
> > We don't have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.
> 
> --
> 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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

Uh, failed to mention before that ABO wants a PDSE to hold optimized load 
modules. Fortunately for us, no sharing issues. If PDSE is a major obstacle to 
moving forward, then ABO does not skirt that problem. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Gibney, David Allen
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Also those who have issues moving to PDS/E loadlibs for COBOL 5.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:01 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> IBM is pitching to two audiences:
> 
> 1. Don't have or are not sure have the current source code.
> 2. No time to test. IBM is touting reduced testing requirements. 
> Opinions may differ.
> 
> I am no expert but if I were going to migrate my COBOL environment I 
> would go to V6. I don't think V5 offers any advantages over V6. V5 has 
> some problems apparently with very large source programs, such as 
> code- generator-produced source, which are ameliorated by V6's use of 
> AMODE64 (for the compiler itself, not for compiled programs).
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:26 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?  
> We don't have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Frank Swarbrick]

We're haven't migrated anything yet, but will start "soon".  We are not yet on 
the required z/OS level (2.1 or 2.2), so we're starting with V5 for now.
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:01:13 -0400
> From: charl...@mcn.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> 
> IBM is pitching to two audiences:
> 
> 1. Don't have or are not sure have the current source code.
> 2. No time to test. IBM is touting reduced testing requirements. Opinions
> may differ.
> 
> I am no expert but if I were going to migrate my COBOL environment I would
> go to V6. I don't think V5 offers any advantages over V6. V5 has some
> problems apparently with very large source programs, such as
> code-generator-produced source, which are ameliorated by V6's use of AMODE64
> (for the compiler itself, not for compiled programs).
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:26 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?  We
> don't have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.
> 
> --
> 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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Gibney, David Allen]

Also those who have issues moving to PDS/E loadlibs for COBOL 5.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:01 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> IBM is pitching to two audiences:
> 
> 1. Don't have or are not sure have the current source code.
> 2. No time to test. IBM is touting reduced testing requirements. Opinions may
> differ.
> 
> I am no expert but if I were going to migrate my COBOL environment I would
> go to V6. I don't think V5 offers any advantages over V6. V5 has some
> problems apparently with very large source programs, such as code-
> generator-produced source, which are ameliorated by V6's use of AMODE64
> (for the compiler itself, not for compiled programs).
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:26 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?  We don't
> have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.
> 
> --
> 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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Charles Mills]

IBM is pitching to two audiences:

1. Don't have or are not sure have the current source code.
2. No time to test. IBM is touting reduced testing requirements. Opinions
may differ.

I am no expert but if I were going to migrate my COBOL environment I would
go to V6. I don't think V5 offers any advantages over V6. V5 has some
problems apparently with very large source programs, such as
code-generator-produced source, which are ameliorated by V6's use of AMODE64
(for the compiler itself, not for compiled programs).

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?  We
don't have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Frank Swarbrick]

If you have and are using V5 (or 6) what is the point of using ABO?  We don't 
have any plans to get ABO.  We're just going to use COBOL V5.
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:35:32 -0500
> From: bill.wood...@gmail.com
> Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> 
> Ach. Not even a typo, but a reado. Wishful thinking.
> 
> Compl-e-mentary, not compl-i-mentary. 
> 
> I fell for the marketing. Sorry about that. Thanks Larre and Charles.
> 
> I did suggest a few months ago in an exchange with Jon Butler that anyone 
> going to V5 should suggest that they get the ABO for free :-)
> 
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 17:57:12 UTC+1, Charles Mills  wrote:
> > I don't think so ...
> > 
> > Charles
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> > Behalf Of Bill Woodger
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:14 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> > 
> > I'm not, but I can't speak for IBM. I don't think they are making a 
> > confusion. I think it is offered for free, in some relationship license for 
> > a V5/V6 compiler.
> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 16:09:55 UTC+1, Larre Shiller  wrote:
> > > ...are you confusing complementary with complimentary...?
> > 
> > --
> > 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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Charles Mills]

Note: "In addition to the entitlements required for use of the Program on the 
machine(s) on which the Program is deployed, Licensee must also obtain Value 
Unit entitlements for the machine(s) on which the COBOL applications optimized 
using the Program are deployed and executed."

-- 
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/7/897/ENUS215-407/index.html=en_locale=en#etcx
 

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Bill Woodger
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Ach. Not even a typo, but a reado. Wishful thinking.

Compl-e-mentary, not compl-i-mentary. 

I fell for the marketing. Sorry about that. Thanks Larre and Charles.

I did suggest a few months ago in an exchange with Jon Butler that anyone going 
to V5 should suggest that they get the ABO for free :-)

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 17:57:12 UTC+1, Charles Mills  wrote:
> I don't think so ...
> 
> Charles

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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

Ach. Not even a typo, but a reado. Wishful thinking.

Compl-e-mentary, not compl-i-mentary. 

I fell for the marketing. Sorry about that. Thanks Larre and Charles.

I did suggest a few months ago in an exchange with Jon Butler that anyone going 
to V5 should suggest that they get the ABO for free :-)

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 17:57:12 UTC+1, Charles Mills  wrote:
> I don't think so ...
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of Bill Woodger
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:14 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
> 
> I'm not, but I can't speak for IBM. I don't think they are making a 
> confusion. I think it is offered for free, in some relationship license for a 
> V5/V6 compiler.
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 16:09:55 UTC+1, Larre Shiller  wrote:
> > ...are you confusing complementary with complimentary...?
> 
> --
> 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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Charles Mills]

I don't think so ...

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Bill Woodger
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

I'm not, but I can't speak for IBM. I don't think they are making a confusion. 
I think it is offered for free, in some relationship license for a V5/V6 
compiler.
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 16:09:55 UTC+1, Larre Shiller  wrote:
> ...are you confusing complementary with complimentary...?

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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

I'm not, but I can't speak for IBM. I don't think they are making a confusion. 
I think it is offered for free, in some relationship license for a V5/V6 
compiler.
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 16:09:55 UTC+1, Larre Shiller  wrote:
> ...are you confusing complementary with complimentary...?
> 
> Larre
> 
> --
> 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: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Tom Marchant]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:20:16 +0800, David Crayford wrote:

>you still have to test all of your existing
>applications so you might as well re-compile them.

Except that recompiling with a different version of the compiler isn't 
necessarily trivial.

-- 
Tom Marchant

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Larre Shiller]

...are you confusing complementary with complimentary...?

Larre

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Charles Mills]

Assuming you have the source code. And you're sure it's the correct current 
source code. 

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of David Crayford
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

On 12/04/2016 10:13 PM, Bill Woodger wrote:
> /Give_your_COBOL_applications_A_BOost_with_the_flip_of_a_switch?lang=e
> n
>
> New is that it is complimentary with V5 and V6, with an "out of the box 
> setup", which can help scheduling migrations whilst still obtaining benefit 
> from the "new" hardware instructions and optimisation techniques.
>
> Claims an average 15% improvement over existing compiled programs. Mileage 
> will vary, but 15% is not bad.

15% is huge! But you still have to test all of your existing applications so 
you might as well re-compile them.

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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

Just came across this: 
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/invisiblethread/entry/Give_your_COBOL_applications_A_BOost_with_the_flip_of_a_switch?lang=en

New is that it is complimentary with V5 and V6, with an "out of the box setup", 
which can help scheduling migrations whilst still obtaining benefit from the 
"new" hardware instructions and optimisation techniques.

Claims an average 15% improvement over existing compiled programs. Mileage will 
vary, but 15% is not bad.

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[David Crayford]

On 12/04/2016 10:13 PM, Bill Woodger wrote:

/Give_your_COBOL_applications_A_BOost_with_the_flip_of_a_switch?lang=en

New is that it is complimentary with V5 and V6, with an "out of the box setup", which can 
help scheduling migrations whilst still obtaining benefit from the "new" hardware 
instructions and optimisation techniques.

Claims an average 15% improvement over existing compiled programs. Mileage will 
vary, but 15% is not bad.


15% is huge! But you still have to test all of your existing 
applications so you might as well re-compile them.


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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

ABO is going to make a V3/V4 program faster, in general, because it has access 
to ARCH(up-to-10), in your case, instructions which the V3/V4 compiler does not 
have access to.

It is also able to use some optimisation techniques not available with OPT in 
V3/V4 (learning for the optimisations in V5, which in turn learned from 
optimisations for Java).

A program may be "flat" (before = after) but that would seem fairly unlikely, 
and any such program would likely not be a CPU heavy-hitter.

Caveat. It would be possible that the ABO has initial "overhead" larger than 
the original program that affects CALLed programs. I don't know. Not seen it. 
Just sayin'.

The ABO people are very confident that CPU savings will pay for the product. 
Not considered in that is costs to get the ABO'ing up and running.

I think there is a role for your type of program, done in a different way, in 
establishing some of the things which will reduce CPU, perhaps depending on how 
you are going to implement ABO.

If you are going to ABO everything in one shot (or similar), then there is less 
need. If you want targeted implementation, then you can do something very 
useful (establish the most likely target-programs).

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Martin Packer]

Questions like this are why I would really like to see "blind them with 
(computer) science" synopses of the kinds of optimisations.

But note: It's not working with the source code.

Cheers, Martin

Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Cloud & Systems Performance, IBM

+44-7802-245-584

email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com

Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker

Blog: 
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker

Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): 
https://developer.ibm.com/tv/category/mpt/



From:   Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date:   11/04/2016 17:44
Subject:    Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>



On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:16:30 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:

>On 4/8/2016 12:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>> The real question is how closely this program resembles a real life 
application program here. Doing only one I/O is pretty extreme, but the 
ratio of pure computation to I/O may be high enough to show improvement 
overall. I'm now waiting for availability of application programmers to 
pursue this further.
>
>In POK just now, Sophia Lopez claimed clients (on z13?) are seeing
>15-25% improvement using ABO. Of course, full recompile should see
>considerably more...
> 
Does ABO have its best-case improvement on certain worst-case input, such
as where it can reduce operator strength, move redundant code outside
loops, or remove otiose statements?  (What are best-case candidates?)

(It might be hardly productive to optimize code that should never have 
been
written in the first place.)

-- gil

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



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

One further update. IBM/ABO modified my original (Rookie Problem) program to 
convert all that horrendous I/O into working storage manipulation. (They also 
removed the gratuitous square root calculation.) As with the prime number 
program, ABO reduced CPU consumption from .39 secs to .27 secs, a 30+% 
improvement. 

Still awaiting application programmer participation. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Bill Woodger
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 2:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Generally, optimisation comes down to "not doing this particular thing will 
allow the program to use fewer resources", "and this one", "and this one as 
well". At times, probably mostly, you'll need to replace code, rather than just 
lose it, but just losing it is the fastest optimisation (it is not unknown to 
discover that a program up for optimisation is, in fact, entirely redundant, or 
can be readily made so).

ABO optimises the actual code. What it has to work with depends on what is 
already there: compiler options and techniques/local standards.

For instance, for a program using "USAGE DISPLAY" numeric data and compiled 
with NOOPT, the ABO will make better savings than for a logically equivalent 
program with packed-decimal/binary numerics as appropriate and already compiled 
with OPT. ABO will still improve that (likely) but not by as much as the other.

Compiler options used (those which affect generation of code) and how the code 
is written will dictate the range of possible improvement. High CPU reduction 
may (strongly may) indicate that the starting-point was not a good one (from a 
performance point of view).

On the other hand, saving 30% on 1,000 programs which don't "do" much, but 
which would add up over the year, is most effectively done by doing nothing but 
using a tool.

How to approach optimisation depends on the requirements of the task. As with 
ABO, spending a little can save more than was spent :-)


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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:16:30 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:

>On 4/8/2016 12:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>> The real question is how closely this program resembles a real life 
>> application program here. Doing only one I/O is pretty extreme, but the 
>> ratio of pure computation to I/O may be high enough to show improvement 
>> overall. I'm now waiting for availability of application programmers to 
>> pursue this further.
>
>In POK just now, Sophia Lopez claimed clients (on z13?) are seeing
>15-25% improvement using ABO. Of course, full recompile should see
>considerably more...
> 
Does ABO have its best-case improvement on certain worst-case input, such
as where it can reduce operator strength, move redundant code outside
loops, or remove otiose statements?  (What are best-case candidates?)

(It might be hardly productive to optimize code that should never have been
written in the first place.)

-- gil

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Ed Jaffe]

On 4/8/2016 12:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:

The real question is how closely this program resembles a real life application 
program here. Doing only one I/O is pretty extreme, but the ratio of pure 
computation to I/O may be high enough to show improvement overall. I'm now 
waiting for availability of application programmers to pursue this further.


In POK just now, Sophia Lopez claimed clients (on z13?) are seeing 
15-25% improvement using ABO. Of course, full recompile should see 
considerably more...


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

Generally, optimisation comes down to "not doing this particular thing will 
allow the program to use fewer resources", "and this one", "and this one as 
well". At times, probably mostly, you'll need to replace code, rather than just 
lose it, but just losing it is the fastest optimisation (it is not unknown to 
discover that a program up for optimisation is, in fact, entirely redundant, or 
can be readily made so).

ABO optimises the actual code. What it has to work with depends on what is 
already there: compiler options and techniques/local standards.

For instance, for a program using "USAGE DISPLAY" numeric data and compiled 
with NOOPT, the ABO will make better savings than for a logically equivalent 
program with packed-decimal/binary numerics as appropriate and already compiled 
with OPT. ABO will still improve that (likely) but not by as much as the other.

Compiler options used (those which affect generation of code) and how the code 
is written will dictate the range of possible improvement. High CPU reduction 
may (strongly may) indicate that the starting-point was not a good one (from a 
performance point of view).

On the other hand, saving 30% on 1,000 programs which don't "do" much, but 
which would add up over the year, is most effectively done by doing nothing but 
using a tool.

How to approach optimisation depends on the requirements of the task. As with 
ABO, spending a little can save more than was spent :-)

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Martin Packer]

I know a little something about ABO (and a little less than that about 
COBOL V5 Optimisation) and I agree with your comments. They make perfect 
sense (and no I've not been involved in this situation).

I recently cautioned an account team to guide their customer thus. I think 
it's fine to share with y'all...



Take a CICS region that talks to DB2 (and we can detect this connection 
from SMF 30). Suppose it's 1 engine's worth (and no this is not a 
discussion about QR TCB limitations). We don't know from SMF 30 how much 
of that path length is "in COBOL" and how much is "in SQL". ABO won't fix 
the latter. It might fix the former.

I hazard as a "play number" that for a typical CICS transaction it might 
be 80% in SQL and 20% in COBOL (really application code).

So, in that case, ABO only attacks 20% of the txn's CPU. SQL tuning etc 
does the rest.

Now, I think we can get much more forensic about this putative 80/20 
split: In DB2 Accounting Trace we see Class 2 (and Class 7) CPU and also 
Class 1 CPU. Class 2 is "in SQL"; Class 1 includes that plus more CPU. So 
I think you have to subtract Class 2 CPU from any "region CPU" estimate 
you have. This ought to firm up the 80/20 which might easily be 50/50 or 
20/80. And then you have a reasonable estimate of the "ABO target". You 
then have to guess how much of that target CPU is saved with ABO. Or try 
it.

The above said "CICS". It might just as well have said "Batch", of course.



For what it's worth a little more "comp sci" explanation of the kinds of 
optimisations wouldn't go amiss. But the developers might consider that 
competitive information. I wouldn't know.

But I'm genuinely pleased ABO was released and think it will be really 
helpful for quite a few customers. The above is intended to be helpful in 
customers assessing the value.


Perhaps I threw away the chance with the above for a blog post (but I can 
still reuse it) and it has the makings of a presentation slide in my 
(accepted on the agenda in Munich) "He Picks On CICS".


Cheers,  Martin

Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Cloud & Systems Performance, IBM

+44-7802-245-584

email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com

Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker

Blog: 
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker

Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): 
https://developer.ibm.com/tv/category/mpt/



From:   Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date:   08/04/2016 20:51
Subject:Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>



I never got any response to this question, so I thought I would contribute 
something. I got lots of help from the List writing my own COBOL program 
to make a preliminary foray into optimization ("COBOL Rookie Problem"). I 
got that program working but did not see much improvement with ABO. It 
does tons of I/O, which I'm told is not where ABO shines. So I tried the 
prime number calculator contributed by David Jousma. It also did not show 
much improvement, but ABO development pointed out that it actually does a 
lot of I/O by DISPLAYing each prime number found. 240,577 to be exact. So 
they replaced the individual DISPLAYs with a single DISPLAY at the end: 
"PRIME-COUNT 00240577". With that change, ABO showed a substantial 
improvement in the neighborhood of 27% reduction in CPU time vs. the 
vanilla version compiled with COBOL 4.2. 

The real question is how closely this program resembles a real life 
application program here. Doing only one I/O is pretty extreme, but the 
ratio of pure computation to I/O may be high enough to show improvement 
overall. I'm now waiting for availability of application programmers to 
pursue this further. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 11:10 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Thought I would share an early experience with ABO. We are pursuing a 
'free trial' arranged by one of our IBM reps. (Yes, we still have them.) 
We are at z/OS 2.1, but the trial is also available for 2.2. I installed 
ABO its own CSI, figuring that we could move forward discreetly without 
impacting the mainstream maintenance process. However, one PTF has an 
ACTION HOLD that mandates installation of one z/OS and three LE PTFs. 
Quoted below. This is a bigger deal than I anticipated because it requires 
popping my head out of the prairie dog hole. These are pretty new PTFs. A 
very recent download of 'recommended' maintenance did no

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Bill Woodger]

Other than using an actual program, you're not going to match an actual 
program. Or if you do, you'll match one and not represent hundreds/thousands of 
others.

If you want to see what the optimisations will effect, it would be possible to 
arrange to be able to say "lots of x will improve the x parts by y%".  

ABO should improve things, generally. By how much, depends. They're fairly 
confident savings will more than pay for the product.

I thought, apart from the repeated OPEN/CLOSE thing, you were off to a good 
start by using a fairly isolated ADD. You later added a load of other stuff, so 
by running the program you can't say much specific. It is quite possible that 
the square-root you tossed in is killing things, but now you don't know. (it 
may well be more cpu-efficient to do your own square-roots if you need one, 
depending on how you did it (FUNCTION or Exponentiation) and if FUNCTION, how 
it is implemented.

By the way, why did they call the program BOZO? 

On Friday, 8 April 2016 20:51:16 UTC+1, Jesse 1 Robinson  wrote:
> I never got any response to this question, so I thought I would contribute 
> something. I got lots of help from the List writing my own COBOL program to 
> make a preliminary foray into optimization ("COBOL Rookie Problem"). I got 
> that program working but did not see much improvement with ABO. It does tons 
> of I/O, which I'm told is not where ABO shines. So I tried the prime number 
> calculator contributed by David Jousma. It also did not show much 
> improvement, but ABO development pointed out that it actually does a lot of 
> I/O by DISPLAYing each prime number found. 240,577 to be exact. So they 
> replaced the individual DISPLAYs with a single DISPLAY at the end: 
> "PRIME-COUNT 00240577". With that change, ABO showed a substantial 
> improvement in the neighborhood of 27% reduction in CPU time vs. the vanilla 
> version compiled with COBOL 4.2. 
> 
> The real question is how closely this program resembles a real life 
> application program here. Doing only one I/O is pretty extreme, but the ratio 
> of pure computation to I/O may be high enough to show improvement overall. 
> I'm now waiting for availability of application programmers to pursue this 
> further.  
> 

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

I never got any response to this question, so I thought I would contribute 
something. I got lots of help from the List writing my own COBOL program to 
make a preliminary foray into optimization ("COBOL Rookie Problem"). I got that 
program working but did not see much improvement with ABO. It does tons of I/O, 
which I'm told is not where ABO shines. So I tried the prime number calculator 
contributed by David Jousma. It also did not show much improvement, but ABO 
development pointed out that it actually does a lot of I/O by DISPLAYing each 
prime number found. 240,577 to be exact. So they replaced the individual 
DISPLAYs with a single DISPLAY at the end: "PRIME-COUNT 00240577". With that 
change, ABO showed a substantial improvement in the neighborhood of 27% 
reduction in CPU time vs. the vanilla version compiled with COBOL 4.2. 

The real question is how closely this program resembles a real life application 
program here. Doing only one I/O is pretty extreme, but the ratio of pure 
computation to I/O may be high enough to show improvement overall. I'm now 
waiting for availability of application programmers to pursue this further.  

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 11:10 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

Thought I would share an early experience with ABO. We are pursuing a 'free 
trial' arranged by one of our IBM reps. (Yes, we still have them.) We are at 
z/OS 2.1, but the trial is also available for 2.2. I installed ABO its own CSI, 
figuring that we could move forward discreetly without impacting the mainstream 
maintenance process. However, one PTF has an ACTION HOLD that mandates 
installation of one z/OS and three LE PTFs. Quoted below. This is a bigger deal 
than I anticipated because it requires popping my head out of the prairie dog 
hole. These are pretty new PTFs. A very recent download of 'recommended' 
maintenance did not include them. Just a heads-up if you're thinking of 
pursuing the ABO trial. 

"++ HOLD(UI35271) SYS FMID(HALI110) REASON(ACTION) DATE(16042) 
   COMMENT
(Using this new feature on z/OS 2.2 requires z/OS APAR OA47689,   
 LE APARs PI52354, PI51546, and PI51802 be applied on the 
 system where the optimizer is used, as well as the system
 where the optimized binaries are run.
 Using this new feature on z/OS 2.1 requires z/OS APAR OA49419,   
 LE APARs PI55281, PI54804, and PI55010 be applied on the 
 system where the optimizer is used, as well as the system where  
 the optimized binaries are run.)."   

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

We are exploring ABO. This product alters the execution of pre-V5 COBOL modules 
in order to introduce-on the fly-some of the new efficiencies of V5 without 
having to recompile.

Has anyone on the List tried it out?

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

Re: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

Thought I would share an early experience with ABO. We are pursuing a 'free 
trial' arranged by one of our IBM reps. (Yes, we still have them.) We are at 
z/OS 2.1, but the trial is also available for 2.2. I installed ABO its own CSI, 
figuring that we could move forward discreetly without impacting the mainstream 
maintenance process. However, one PTF has an ACTION HOLD that mandates 
installation of one z/OS and three LE PTFs. Quoted below. This is a bigger deal 
than I anticipated because it requires popping my head out of the prairie dog 
hole. These are pretty new PTFs. A very recent download of 'recommended' 
maintenance did not include them. Just a heads-up if you're thinking of 
pursuing the ABO trial. 

"++ HOLD(UI35271) SYS FMID(HALI110) REASON(ACTION) DATE(16042) 
   COMMENT
(Using this new feature on z/OS 2.2 requires z/OS APAR OA47689,   
 LE APARs PI52354, PI51546, and PI51802 be applied on the 
 system where the optimizer is used, as well as the system
 where the optimized binaries are run.
 Using this new feature on z/OS 2.1 requires z/OS APAR OA49419,   
 LE APARs PI55281, PI54804, and PI55010 be applied on the 
 system where the optimizer is used, as well as the system where  
 the optimized binaries are run.)."   

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

We are exploring ABO. This product alters the execution of pre-V5 COBOL modules 
in order to introduce-on the fly-some of the new efficiencies of V5 without 
having to recompile.

Has anyone on the List tried it out?

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

Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO)

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

We are exploring ABO. This product alters the execution of pre-V5 COBOL modules 
in order to introduce-on the fly-some of the new efficiencies of V5 without 
having to recompile.

Has anyone on the List tried it out?

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com


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