1969 is very important. I was born that year! :-)
From: Timothy Sipples sipp...@sg.ibm.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
Shane Ginnane write:
I was referring
Shane Ginnane write:
I was referring to the contortions involved in the introduction of
specialty engines.
Yes, I know. I refer you to my previous answer.
Martin Packer writes:
Actually more slower engines applies here as well.
Getting a bit more interesting, especially as engines get/got
There is a long and tortuous story behind it all Tom - one
that only Lewis Carroll or Terry Pratchett could have thought up.
A product of bean-counters and sales-droids trying to make up for
the fact they'd strangled the goose that had lain all those golden
eggs for decades.
No, not really, or at
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:13:06 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote:
The primary and probably only
reason sub-capacity general purpose engines exist is to provide increased
licensing granularity for full capacity licensed software.
Nice try. I was referring to the contortions involved in the introduction
/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: Timothy Sipples sipp...@sg.ibm.com
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Date: 28/03/2014 08:15
Subject:Re: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
There is a long
It was only the rest for season 1 .
Chris hoelscher
Technology Architect | Database Infrastructure Services
Technology Solution Services
123 East Main Street |Louisville, KY 40202
choelsc...@humana.com
Humana.com
(502) 476-2538 – office
(502) 714-8615 - blackberry
Keeping CAS and Metavance
Tom, =20
I have a question on your comment about offloading XML to specialty engines
. To quote:
Also, offloading to specialty processors does not change total CPU usage,
and does not improve performance or throughput. It could change
how much you pay to run it.
My standard engines are
On 03/27/2014 06:56 PM, Tom Ross wrote:
Tom, =20
I have a question on your comment about offloading XML to specialty engines
. To quote:
Also, offloading to specialty processors does not change total CPU usage,
and does not improve performance or throughput. It could change
how much you
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:56:21 -0700, Tom Ross wrote:
Interesting, I am not sure what 'kneecapped' is, but I suppose your engines
are slowed down by getting a discount on price or something? When that
happens we don't do the same for the specialty processors?
There is a long and tortuous story
Also, offloading [XML processing] to specialty processors does not change
total CPU usage, and does not improve performance or throughput.
...in a completely unconstrained environment.
It could change how how much you pay to run it.
Most organizations consider that factor to be important.
The
One of my co-workers is trying to improve the performance of an Enterprise =
4.1 program that decomposes an input XML file into record fields for proces=
sing by later programs. The volume of the XML input has increased quite a =
bit and the performance may soon impact SLA's.
This program is
Of Tom Ross
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
One of my co-workers is trying to improve the performance of an Enterprise =
4.1 program that decomposes an input XML file into record fields for proces=
sing by later
that?
Thanks again for your help.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Ross
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
One of my co-workers
Swarbrick
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
I seem to recall Tom Ross saying that XMLSS is, in fact, generally slower than
COMPAT. I believe the only advantage to XMLSS is that it can be offloaded
Subject: Re: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
He might also suggest migrating to COBOL 5.1. From the migration guide:
The XML function supported by IBM® Enterprise COBOL for z/OS® has been
enhanced:
•The XML GENERATE statement has been extended with new syntax that gives
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
He might also suggest migrating to COBOL 5.1. From the migration guide:
The XML function supported by IBM® Enterprise COBOL for z/OS® has been enhanced:
•The XML GENERATE statement has been extended
One of my co-workers is trying to improve the performance of an Enterprise 4.1
program that decomposes an input XML file into record fields for processing by
later programs. The volume of the XML input has increased quite a bit and the
performance may soon impact SLA's.
This program is
, no? I'm sure Tom will correct me if I have misstated!
Frank
From: Farley, Peter x23353 peter.far...@broadridge.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: XMLSS performance vs COBOL 4.1 runtime XML
One of my co-workers
18 matches
Mail list logo
