nal Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM
I mentioned having modified a QSAM program to write 'large blocks' by replacing
Yes, don't just write using LBI from a program and expect to validate old vs
new with ISRSUPC in batch.
I know that a PMR has been raised about whether ISRSUPC supports LBI, the
IEC141I 013-E1 message it produces hints at not.
From what I've heard, using LBI, where it is possible to use it,
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM
Joseph Reichman wrote:
>I'm going to run it again tomorrow
&g
I'm going to run it again tomorrow
Just to double check
Thanks for your help
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Sam Siegel wrote:
>
> Are you sure it is not just cache? were the tests run multiple times
> and averaged? was the load on the system and dasd sub-system similar
Are you sure it is not just cache? were the tests run multiple times
and averaged? was the load on the system and dasd sub-system similar
for each test?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote:
> Hi
>
> And thank you all
>
> I just did a benchmark
>
> And
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:19:06 -0500, Joseph Reichman wrote:
>
>I just did a benchmark
>
>And I had a significant savings in CPU time
>24 bit QSAM .85 CPU time 31 bit QSAM .34 CPU time
>I could tell it ran a lot faster
>
But why is anyone doing 31-bit nowadays?
--gil