Discussion:
z390
Add Reply
Steve Beaver
2017-02-21 19:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Has anyone on the list used the z390 assembler? I have a question

Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Lizette Koehler
2017-02-21 20:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why not just post the question and see if there are any answers.

Lizette


> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Steve Beaver
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:55 PM
> To: IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: z390
>
> Has anyone on the list used the z390 assembler? I have a question
>
> Steve
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Steve Beaver
2017-02-21 21:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have the z390 Assembler that Don Higgins wrote however the docs are a bit on the shaky side (lack of examples)

The sysmac and the syscpy concatenations are working as I expected and it's not find any macros

call %~dps0mz390 %1 sysmac(G:\MACS\UMACLIB\+.G:\MACS\SMACLIB\) syscpy(G:\MACS\UMACLIB\+.G:\MACS\SMACLIB\) %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9

Does anyone have any idea? According to the docs this is a concatenation of you subdirectories but its not working

sysmac(G:\MACS\UMACLIB\+.G:\MACS\SMACLIB\)

Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
i***@FOXMAIL.COM
2017-11-22 03:19:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi all

Below is our three CF reports at the same time.

Report 1. CFSYS from RMF MONIII

The Coupling Facility Systems (CF Systems) report (CFSYS) gives you information about the distribution of coupling facility requests

among the systems and about the activities in the subchannels and paths attached to the coupling facilities in the sysplex

CF Name System Subchannel -- Paths -- -- Sync --- ------- Async -------
Delay Busy Avail Delay Rate Avg Rate Avg Chng Del
% % % Serv Serv % %
BPC3C1 NP1A 0.1 97.8 4 0.0 0.1 497 26344 1187 49.6 50.3
Note1: The Subchannel Delay =0.1%

Report 2 : SUBCHANNEL ACTIVITY from RMF Postprocessor C O U P L I N G F A C I L I T Y A C T I V I T Y
PAGE 225
z/OS V2R2 SYSPLEX PLEXNP1 DATE 11/15/2017 INTERVAL 015.00.000
RPT VERSION V2R2 RMF TIME 23.45.00 CYCLE 01.000 SECONDS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUPLING FACILITY NAME = BPC3C1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCHANNEL ACTIVITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# REQ ----------- REQUESTS ----------- ------------------ DELAYED REQUESTS --------------
SYSTEM TOTAL -- CF LINKS -- PTH # -SERVICE TIME(MIC)- # % OF ------ AVG TIME(MIC) ------
NAME AVG/SEC TYPE GEN USE BUSY REQ AVG STD_DEV REQ REQ /DEL STD_DEV /ALL

NP1A 18567K CS5 4 4 2 SYNC 4654K 10.7 18.7 LIST/CACHE 12M 62.8 1719 1954 1080
20630 SUBCH 64 32 ASYNC 13757K 990.7 700.5 LOCK 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CHANGED 11244K INCLUDED IN ASYNC TOTAL 12M 62.8

note2: Subchannel DELAYED REQUESTS %=62.8


Report 3 : COUPLING FACILITY STRUCTURE ACTIVITY from RMF Postprocessor C O U P L I N G F A C I L I T Y A C T I V I T Y PAGE 121
z/OS V2R2 SYSPLEX PLEXNP1 DATE 11/15/2017 INTERVAL 015.00.000
RPT VERSION V2R2 RMF TIME 23.45.00 CYCLE 01.000 SECONDS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUPLING FACILITY NAME = BPC3C1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUPLING FACILITY STRUCTURE ACTIVITY


STRUCTURE NAME = DSNEP01_GBP16K1 TYPE = CACHE STATUS = ACTIVE
# REQ -------------- REQUESTS ------------- -------------- DELAYED REQUESTS -------------
SYSTEM TOTAL # % OF -SERV TIME(MIC)- REASON # % OF ---- AVG TIME(MIC) -----
NAME AVG/SEC REQ ALL AVG STD_DEV REQ REQ /DEL STD_DEV /ALL

NP1A 7474K SYNC 254K 0.4 19.5 62.4 NO SCH 7012K 93.8 2463 1074 2311
8304 ASYNC 7220K 11.6 1433.0 569.2 PR WT 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CHNGD 7098K 11.4 INCLUDED IN ASYNC PR CMP 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SUPPR 0 0.0 DUMP 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

note3 : Subchannel DELAYED REQUESTS %=93.8%
Our question: 1 Why these three report is difference for Subchannel Delay?
2 Why The Subchannel Delay is just 0.1% in CFSYS ?
Thanks a lot!Best Regards,
Jason Cai




----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Mark A. Brooks
2017-11-22 15:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Subchannel activity (report 2) includes all (roughly 18 million) requests from the indicated source system to the CF, whereas structure activity (report 3) only includes the (roughly 8 million) requests targeted to the indicated structure. 12 million delayed out of all 18 million requests to the CF vs 7 million delayed out of 8 million for the one structure explains the difference for those two.

I'm not familiar with the production of the CFSYS report. I suspect that the data samples used to produce it are not the same as the ones being used for the other two reports. I'm thinking the CFSYS time period is likely shorter than the 15 minute interval shown in the post-processor reports. Still, CFSYS indicates that roughly 50% of the 26K/sec async requests are being delayed, so 0.1% value seems low. But but there are other causes for delay (such as dump serialization) that could be factors.

Mark A Brooks
z/OS Sysplex Development

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Peter Hunkeler
2017-11-22 16:56:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
>But but there are other causes for delay (such as dump serialization) that could be factors.


Apart from dump serialization, what else? CPU constraints in the CF? CF internal serialization?
--
Peter Hunkeler

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
i***@FOXMAIL.COM
2017-11-23 02:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From report1 , we don't need to add more cf physical Link or subchannel

From report2 and report 3, More cf physical Link or subchannel need be added.

I wonder whether we need add more cf physical Link or subchannel or not?

Jason Cai

From: Mark A. Brooks
Date: 2017-11-22 23:02
To: IBM-MAIN
Subject: Re: CF REPORT
Subchannel activity (report 2) includes all (roughly 18 million) requests from the indicated source system to the CF, whereas structure activity (report 3) only includes the (roughly 8 million) requests targeted to the indicated structure. 12 million delayed out of all 18 million requests to the CF vs 7 million delayed out of 8 million for the one structure explains the difference for those two.

I'm not familiar with the production of the CFSYS report. I suspect that the data samples used to produce it are not the same as the ones being used for the other two reports. I'm thinking the CFSYS time period is likely shorter than the 15 minute interval shown in the post-processor reports. Still, CFSYS indicates that roughly 50% of the 26K/sec async requests are being delayed, so 0.1% value seems low. But but there are other causes for delay (such as dump serialization) that could be factors.

Mark A Brooks
z/OS Sysplex Development

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


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Mark A. Brooks
2017-11-27 21:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
z/OS is only using about half the subchannels that you defined (to mitigate path busy conditions). I don't think you have a subchannel issue. Your sync times are very nice. Your async times are horrific. That is most likely the problem. Async completion time is influenced by such things as distance to the CF, processing time in the CF, and the time it takes z/OS to become aware of and process the request completion. The good sync times push me towards thinking that the issue is with back end completion on the z/OS host side. I'd look at things that would influence the ability of the z/OS host to process work. Shared CPs? Appropriate LPAR weights? that sort of thing. If running on zBC12/zEC12 or later hardware, I'd make sure that the XCF functions switch for COUPLINGTHININT is ENABLED.

Mark A Brooks
z/OS Sysplex Development

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