I think IBM is like sleeping beauty, waiting for a price to awake from the
Watson nightmare (or the prince called RAD HAT ?!)...
ITschak
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:57 AM zMan wrote:
> Welcome to the new IBM.
>
> And they think they're going to woo cloud customers with this level of
> support...
Welcome to the new IBM.
And they think they're going to woo cloud customers with this level of
support...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the
IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of ITschak Mugzach
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 2:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
an update about syssrc & syscpu under systemrexx:
I opened a PMR. IBM
an update about syssrc & syscpu under systemrexx:
I opened a PMR. IBM agrees it does not work. However, they supplied a long
explanation how it works under TSO/E, why it doesn't work under SystemRexx,
and a workaround based on Rexx STORAGE function. If I want the issue to be
fixed, I need to open
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 15:29:48 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
>On 14/09/2018 9:21 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
>>
>> What model is that? How severely is it kneecapped?
>>
>
>We're pretty heavily kneecapped but I would still expect better
>performance than a emulated machine
>
>Processor Information from
On 14/09/2018 9:21 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:28:09 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
Wow, that's interesting! It runs in 1.861138 cpu seconds on our z13s. We
have 800mips sliced up between 3 cores so 266mips per core.
What model is that? How severely is it kneecapped?
We're
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:28:09 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
>Wow, that's interesting! It runs in 1.861138 cpu seconds on our z13s. We
>have 800mips sliced up between 3 cores so 266mips per core.
What model is that? How severely is it kneecapped?
--
Tom Marchant
Wow, that's interesting! It runs in 1.861138 cpu seconds on our z13s. We
have 800mips sliced up between 3 cores so 266mips per core.
So your zPDT core which is running emulated is faster at running REXX
than our z13s! Can that be right? No wonder IBM limit the zPDT
to 1 core imagine what
Hi David,
Happy to inform that it work just fine. Thanks. BTW, it took only
1.385268 cpu seconds on our machine, a zPdt, one CPU.
Tx again,
ITschak
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM ITschak Mugzach wrote:
> Tx. Will report findings today.
>
> ITschak
>
> בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בספט׳ 2018, 13:05,
Tx. Will report findings today.
ITschak
בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בספט׳ 2018, 13:05, מאת David Crayford <
dcrayf...@gmail.com>:
> I didn't try it with System REXX as I don't have access to that. Let us
> know how you go.
>
>
> On 13/09/2018 4:58 PM, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
> > Thanks David.
> >
> > Did
I didn't try it with System REXX as I don't have access to that. Let us
know how you go.
On 13/09/2018 4:58 PM, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
Thanks David.
Did u try this under SysremRexx? I'll try it tonight.
ITSCHAK
בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בספט׳ 2018, 11:44, מאת David Crayford <
Thanks David.
Did u try this under SysremRexx? I'll try it tonight.
ITSCHAK
בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בספט׳ 2018, 11:44, מאת David Crayford <
dcrayf...@gmail.com>:
> In the meantime you can do a quick and dirty using TCBTTIME
>
> /* REXX */
>
> main:
>start = cputime()
>do i = 1 to 100
>
In the meantime you can do a quick and dirty using TCBTTIME
/* REXX */
main:
start = cputime()
do i = 1 to 100
nop
end
say 'CPU time:' cputime() - start
exit
cputime:
cvt = ptr(16)
tcbp = ptr(cvt)
tcb = ptr(tcbp + 4)
tcbttime = stg(tcb + 316, 8)
Will do. the partner site is under maintenance...
ITscha
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:11 PM David Crayford wrote:
> On 12/09/2018 7:01 PM, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
> > Sounds like a bug to ne...
>
> Maybe in System REXX but not in TSO where you may have split screens and
> multiple tasks in the
On 12/09/2018 7:01 PM, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
Sounds like a bug to ne...
Maybe in System REXX but not in TSO where you may have split screens and
multiple tasks in the mix. Open an RFE.
ITschak
בתאריך יום ד׳, 12 בספט׳ 2018, 13:40, מאת David Crayford <
dcrayf...@gmail.com>:
On
Sounds like a bug to ne...
ITschak
בתאריך יום ד׳, 12 בספט׳ 2018, 13:40, מאת David Crayford <
dcrayf...@gmail.com>:
> On 12/09/2018 6:07 PM, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
> > Boys, don't still the thread... I need to understand why is same code not
> > working under SystemRexx. Try it yourself.
>
> I
On 12/09/2018 6:07 PM, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
Boys, don't still the thread... I need to understand why is same code not
working under SystemRexx. Try it yourself.
I would take a guess that if you are running System REXX with TSO=YES
then sysvar('SYSCPU') is returning the CPU time of
the
Boys, don't still the thread... I need to understand why is same code not
working under SystemRexx. Try it yourself.
ITschak
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:56 PM Mike Shorkend
wrote:
> I use the procedure provided by IBM, taking all compiler option defaults
>
> // JCLLIB
I use the procedure provided by IBM, taking all compiler option defaults
// JCLLIB ORDER='FAN140.SVSC.PROCLIB'
//S1 EXEC REXXC
//SYSCEXEC DD DSN=MIKE.CREXX(LOOP2),DISP=SHR
//SYSINDD DSN=MIKE.REXX(LOOP2),DISP=SHR
which expands to
z/OS 2.3, IBM Compiler for REXX on zSeries 4.0 LVL PI76785.
Can you share you compiler JCL?
On 12/09/2018 5:32 PM, Mike Shorkend wrote:
David - I ran it on z/OS 2.2, the REXX compiler is 1.4
How about you?
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 12:27, David Crayford wrote:
On 12/09/2018 4:56 PM, Mike
David - I ran it on z/OS 2.2, the REXX compiler is 1.4
How about you?
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 12:27, David Crayford wrote:
> On 12/09/2018 4:56 PM, Mike Shorkend wrote:
> > The new test shows:
> > Non-compiled
> >
> > CPU TIME = 77.09
> >
> > Compiled
> >
> > CPU TIME = 11.27
>
> Your results
On 12/09/2018 4:56 PM, Mike Shorkend wrote:
The new test shows:
Non-compiled
CPU TIME = 77.09
Compiled
CPU TIME = 11.27
Your results are different to mine!
Interpreted: CPU time = 3.12
Compiled: CPU time = 7.99
Not so great, because of the inefficient memory management with stem
Got SYSVAR to work with Compiled rexx
The original test not-compiled
BGN CPU: 39.17
BGN SRV: 49548
END CPU: 52.11
END SRV: 69953
and Compiled
BGN CPU: 38.86
BGN SRV: 49069
END CPU: 39.12
END SRV: 49477
Same results as my other test - about 50 times faster with
OK. found it. it work fine under tso/batch, but doesn't work under
systemrexx.
ITschak
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM ITschak Mugzach wrote:
> It look like the problem is not in my code, but somehow in my system. I am
> running z/os 2.3 on a zPDT box. I'll investigate this issue.
>
>
It look like the problem is not in my code, but somehow in my system. I am
running z/os 2.3 on a zPDT box. I'll investigate this issue.
ITschak
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:37 AM Elardus Engelbrecht <
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za> wrote:
> David Crayford wrote:
>
> >Try the following snippet
David Crayford wrote:
>Try the following snippet both interpreted and compiled.
>/* REXX */
>start = sysvar('SYSCPU')
>s = copies('0',1024)
>do i = 1 to 50
> a.i = s
>end
>say 'CPU time = 'sysvar('SYSCPU') - start
Thanks! That is a nice cool one. I have put that also in my REXX progs for
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
[External Email]
Crikey! Did it really take REXX a whopping 7.7 CPU seconds to count to
ten million?
On 12/09/2018 3:52 AM, Jackson, Rob wrote:
Works for me just fine. Looping ten million times and incrementing a
ITschak Mugzach wrote:
>Strange indeed. However, my rexx is a collection of many procedure calls
>(internal). Should this effect the way SYSVAR works?
I don't know about the SYSVAR.
I am using this alternative (elapsd time) to see how fast my Catalog Search
Interface is working:
SAY
; >
> > We are on a baby machine, a 2965-Txx, so that accounts for some of it,
> but still, yes, REXX is indeed expensive.
> >
> > First Tennessee Bank
> > Mainframe Technical Support
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
[External Email]
Crikey! Did it really take REXX a whopping 7.7 CPU seconds to count to ten
million?
On 12/09/2018 3:52 AM, Jackson, Rob wrote:
Works for me just fine. Looping ten million times and incrementing a
, September 11, 2018 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
[External Email]
Crikey! Did it really take REXX a whopping 7.7 CPU seconds to count to ten
million?
On 12/09/2018 3:52 AM, Jackson, Rob wrote:
> Works for me just fine. Looping ten million ti
SRV: 2721588
First Tennessee Bank
Mainframe Technical Support
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
ITschak Mugzach
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
[External Email]
I
Not unless it's abending.
In a message dated 9/11/2018 3:33:41 PM Central Standard Time,
imugz...@gmail.com writes:
Should this effect the way SYSVAR works?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
gt; Of ITschak Mugzach
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:55 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
>
> [External Email]
>
> Bob, that's what I was expecting. please paste the code here. for some
> reason, my code returns s
h
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:36 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
>
> [External Email]
>
> I am trying to measure Rexx exec performance metrics. Elapse is easy
> Time('R') at start exec resets the counter and the second
11, 2018 3:36 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
>
> [External Email]
>
> I am trying to measure Rexx exec performance metrics. Elapse is easy
> Time('R') at start exec resets the counter and the second one reports the
&
On Behalf Of
ITschak Mugzach
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
[External Email]
I am trying to measure Rexx exec performance metrics. Elapse is easy
Time('R') at start exec resets the counter and the second one
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:36:01 PM
Subject: Co-posted: Rexx performance measures
I am trying to measure Rexx exec performance metrics. Elapse is easy
Time('R') at start exec resets the counter and the second one reports the
value. But how to measure CPU
I am trying to measure Rexx exec performance metrics. Elapse is easy
Time('R') at start exec resets the counter and the second one reports the
value. But how to measure CPU or service units? I tried SYSVAR('CPU') at
beginning of exec and at end, thinking to do the calculation myself, but
both
39 matches
Mail list logo
