Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM

2017-02-16 Thread Charles Mills
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

Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM

2017-02-16 Thread Bill Woodger
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,

Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM

2017-02-16 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
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

Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM

2017-02-15 Thread Joseph Reichman
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

Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM

2017-02-15 Thread Sam Siegel
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

Re: 31 vs 24 QSAM

2017-02-15 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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