Discussion:
Highly used programs: any better replacements out there? IDCAMS, IEFBR14
(too old to reply)
Abbacabba
2005-07-11 21:00:24 UTC
Permalink
At my shop I have been pulling usage stats and IDCAMS is always our #1
CPU user right after 2 custom programs.

IEFBR14 is one of our most USED program with ~1500 uses a day.


We have switched to ICEGENER over the IEB version and I was wondering
if any type of replacement or better program existed for these two.


I know the request is very broad and the details weak, if anyone would
like me to see just how IDCAMS is being used and post that I will
tomorrow.


Thank you,
John F.
Richard Peurifoy
2005-07-11 21:26:22 UTC
Permalink
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible (SR R15,R15 BR
R14, well I guess you
could remove the SR but that wouln't save much). It is also in LPA, so
you don't even have to
load it when you run it. Many people use this to create/delete
datasets. The only thing I think
you can do is move what ever DD cards are use to other steps so that you
don't use IEFBR14
at all. This may not allways be feasable, and I doubt it is woth the
trouble anyway. Why do you
care what program is run most often any way? If it is not a big resource
user what difference
does it make.

As to IDCAMS, I am supprised it is a big CPU user, but without knowing
what is being
done by it, or what other programs you run it is hard to say if this is
a problem. Depending
on what it is being used for, their may or may not be replacements
available.

Richard
Post by Abbacabba
At my shop I have been pulling usage stats and IDCAMS is always our #1
CPU user right after 2 custom programs.
IEFBR14 is one of our most USED program with ~1500 uses a day.
We have switched to ICEGENER over the IEB version and I was wondering
if any type of replacement or better program existed for these two.
I know the request is very broad and the details weak, if anyone would
like me to see just how IDCAMS is being used and post that I will
tomorrow.
Thank you,
John F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 12:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Peurifoy
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible
(SR R15,R15 BR R14
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, "There is no
program, just set return code zero?" It could avoid all the setup for
calling IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery,
etc.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
2005-07-14 00:18:42 UTC
Permalink
In
<OFB4513AD6.8490E6B3-ON8625703C.0043920A-***@americancentury.com>,
on 07/12/2005
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, "There is no
program, just set return code zero?" It could avoid all the setup
for calling IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery,
etc.
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That would introduce new potentiality
for errors and would increase the overhead for everything other than
IEFBR14. How expensive is one ATTACH and how much are you willing to
pay to get rid of it?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Dan Espen
2005-07-14 01:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
In
on 07/12/2005
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, "There is no
program, just set return code zero?" It could avoid all the setup
for calling IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery,
etc.
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That would introduce new potentiality
for errors and would increase the overhead for everything other than
IEFBR14. How expensive is one ATTACH and how much are you willing to
pay to get rid of it?
How hard is it for MVS to support:

// EXEC PGM=,

Yeah, I know I'm on Usenet.
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-14 13:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That would introduce new
potentiality for errors and would increase the overhead
for everything other than IEFBR14. How expensive is one
ATTACH and how much are you willing to pay to get rid
of it?
Oh boo hoo! If you're afraid of the -potential- for errors,
you're in the wrong business.

The extra overhead for non-IEFBR14 steps is two instructions,
CLC and BC. Since the cost of setting up the step, attaching
the program, generating stats, etc is likely many thousands
of instructions, it's a simple tradeoff.

Suppose the cost is 1/1000 of one cent per ATTACH and
ignore the other associated costs like SMF data. I'd
estimate we use IEFBR14 10,000 times per day. That's $36.50
per year. Maybe $36.60 for leap years. Do that for 30 years
for $1095.70. Do that for 1000 data centers for $1,095,700.

As an individual, I wouldn't pay 2 cents. It's already
covered in our service contract. I merely offered the
suggestion.

Along the same lines, what's it cost to do one DC 0H vs.
one DS 0H? Probably less than it cost to ask that
question. But, there you are - arguing about it.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
R.S.
2005-07-14 14:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Post by shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That would introduce new
potentiality for errors and would increase the overhead
for everything other than IEFBR14. How expensive is one
ATTACH and how much are you willing to pay to get rid
of it?
Oh boo hoo! If you're afraid of the -potential- for errors,
you're in the wrong business.
The extra overhead for non-IEFBR14 steps is two instructions,
CLC and BC. Since the cost of setting up the step, attaching
the program, generating stats, etc is likely many thousands
of instructions, it's a simple tradeoff.
Suppose the cost is 1/1000 of one cent per ATTACH and
ignore the other associated costs like SMF data. I'd
estimate we use IEFBR14 10,000 times per day. That's $36.50
per year. Maybe $36.60 for leap years. Do that for 30 years
for $1095.70. Do that for 1000 data centers for $1,095,700.
We don't use 10000 IEFBR14's daily, I'm pretty sure of that.
Our programmers are smart enough to code DISP=(,CATLG) just in step when
the dataset will be opened. Nevermind, let's back to the economy:
where can I get my (or my company's) $36.50 ? Oh, we're open for several
years!
But seriously: this way of cost counting is completely false. It is
obvious, that cost of CPU cycle is different during businness hours and
after hours, it is obvious that IEFBR14 will be invoked with lower
priority than online transaction, it is obvious that all the time when
CPU is not 100% busy it mean some CPU cycles are LOST.

IMHO this change is one of the least important in JCL, batch processing,
z/OS and whole mainframe industry. What would be less important ?

Just my $0.02
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-14 15:49:00 UTC
Permalink
I'd estimate we use IEFBR14 10,000 times per day.
Correction - after further analysis, we run IEFBR14
over 30,000 times per day. This seems high.

Does anyone else have actual counts?


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Mike Bell
2005-07-14 16:00:58 UTC
Permalink
One of the companies I worked for had a standard that was required for
their restart procedures. Output datasets were created in iefbr14
step and then referenced as disp=old in the program step. All the
programs were checkpoint restartable but not with IBM checkpoint. The
default CA7/11 restart would delete disp=new datasets when it
attempted to restart the job step. since the dataset was disp=old, it
left the dataset and the paritial data was available for the restart.
Sounds like your shop setup a lot of JCL that way.

Mike
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
I'd estimate we use IEFBR14 10,000 times per day.
Correction - after further analysis, we run IEFBR14
over 30,000 times per day. This seems high.
Does anyone else have actual counts?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
--
Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
2005-07-14 23:32:36 UTC
Permalink
In
<OF93D9A6E0.C0388709-ON8625703E.0046316A-***@americancentury.com>,
on 07/14/2005
Oh boo hoo! If you're afraid of the -potential- for errors, you're in
the wrong business.
Au contraire, if you're indifferent to the possibility of error, then
you're in the wrong business. The issue is risk versus benefit, and
when there is essentially no benefit then it doesn't take much risk to
make it a bad idea.
The extra overhead for non-IEFBR14 steps is two instructions, CLC
and BC.
Maybe, but don't count on it. The smart money says that you aren't
aware of what would actually have to be changed, much less what it
would cost.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
2005-07-14 00:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Many people use this to create/delete datasets.
Or, at least, so they believe. At least it's a less expensive
placeholder than IEHPROGM.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Robert Smith
2005-07-16 16:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Customers have been fleeced
blind ever since the marketing vampires figured out that hitching
Post by shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
Many people use this to create/delete datasets.
Or, at least, so they believe. At least it's a less expensive
placeholder than IEHPROGM.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-11 21:37:13 UTC
Permalink
..
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible (SR R15,R15 BR
R14, well I guess you
could remove the SR but that wouln't save much).
..

IEFBR14 used to not have the SR instruction, but then the contents
of R15 were causing problems because that was/is the RC.

So, IEFBR14 became the only programme to double in size because of a
PTS/APAR.

By the way, the programme doesn't do allocation.
It's just a placeholder for the initiator (in simple terms).

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
S***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-11 21:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Re: SR R15,R15

Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient? Or are 32 bit subtractions
now single cycle instructions?

(Just curious.)

Stg

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
2005-07-14 00:18:26 UTC
Permalink
In
<OF8332692D.162412D3-ON8625703B.0077F864-***@aismail.wustl.edu>,
on 07/11/2005
Post by S***@ibm-main.lst
Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient?
No. Yes. On what processor?

Even in the S/360 days the answer would depend on the box. Likewise SR
versus SLR vs LA.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Richard Peurifoy
2005-07-11 22:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Peurifoy
..
IEFBR14 already does as near to nothing as possible (SR R15,R15 BR
R14, well I guess you
could remove the SR but that wouln't save much).
..
IEFBR14 used to not have the SR instruction, but then the contents
of R15 were causing problems because that was/is the RC.
So, IEFBR14 became the only programme to double in size because of a
PTS/APAR.
By the way, the programme doesn't do allocation.
It's just a placeholder for the initiator (in simple terms).
Yes, I realize IEFBR14 doesn't actually do
allocation/creation/deletion/catalog/uncatalog.
The INTIATOR/TERMINATOR process the dispostion on the DD statements and
calls
other system routines to accomplish this. But many people use it to for
this purpose.

Richard

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Frank Yaeger
2005-07-11 21:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abbacabba
We have switched to ICEGENER over the IEB version and I was wondering
if any type of replacement or better program existed for these two.
DFSORT's ICEGENER is a better replacement for IEBGENER. It uses
DFSORT copy when possible and uses IEBGENER when necessary
(e.g. when IEBGENER control statements are specified).

Frank Yaeger - DFSORT Team (IBM)
Specialties: ICETOOL, IFTHEN, OVERLAY, Symbols, Migration
=> DFSORT/MVS is on the Web at http://www.ibm.com/storage/dfsort/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-11 22:35:18 UTC
Permalink
..
Yes, I realize IEFBR14 doesn't actually do allocation/creation/deletion/catalog/uncatalog.
The INTIATOR/TERMINATOR process the dispostion on the DD statements and calls other system routines to accomplish this. But many people use it to for this purpose.
..

I do too. I didn't intend to talk down, but I know many APPDEV-types
who think of this as the only way
to create/delete.
What do they think the master/merge files in their
COBOL programmes are doing with the same DISP statements?

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
David Andrews
2005-07-12 13:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted MacNEIL
I didn't intend to talk down, but I know many APPDEV-types
who think of this as the only way to create/delete.
I once had an applications guy (a new hire) ask me where "the IEFBR14
manual" was. He didn't last very long.
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
***@duda.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ray Mullins
2005-07-12 14:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Did you tell him about the IEFBR15 utility?
--
M. Ray Mullins
Roseville, CA, USA
http://www.catherdersoftware.com/
http://www.mrmullins.big-bear-city.ca.us/
http://www.the-bus-stops-here.org/
Post by Rob Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Tuesday 12 July 2005 06:34
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements
out there? IDCAMS, IEFBR14
Post by Ted MacNEIL
I didn't intend to talk down, but I know many APPDEV-types
who think
Post by Ted MacNEIL
of this as the only way to create/delete.
I once had an applications guy (a new hire) ask me where "the
IEFBR14 manual" was. He didn't last very long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ron and Jenny Hawkins
2005-07-12 14:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Did the same guy go looking for left handed screwdrivers and buckets of blue
steam?
Post by Rob Scott
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2005 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements out there?
IDCAMS, IEFBR14
Post by Ted MacNEIL
I didn't intend to talk down, but I know many APPDEV-types
who think of this as the only way to create/delete.
I once had an applications guy (a new hire) ask me where "the IEFBR14
manual" was. He didn't last very long.
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Bob Shannon
2005-07-12 12:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, "There is no
program, >just set return code zero?" It could avoid all the setup for
calling >IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery, etc.



Is this comment just noise or do you seriously expect IBM to
change/eliminate IEBGENER?



Bob Shannon




----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 12:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Shannon
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that
says, "There is no program, just set return code
zero?" It could avoid all the setup for calling
IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area,
recovery, etc.
Is this comment just noise or do you seriously expect
IBM to change/eliminate IEBGENER?
Please reread my suggestion. It says nothing about
IEBGENER. I also wouldn't expect anyone to eliminate
IEFBR14. Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified. Of course, still perform any JCL functions
like dataset allocation and deletion.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Gary Green
2005-07-12 12:41:02 UTC
Permalink
For those that care about such issues...

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,15895569%5E15317%5E%5Enbv%5E
15306,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Paul Gillis
2005-07-13 09:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Nothing about this on the university web site. The 3 companies mentioned are
close to the last of the "not yet outsourced" organisations in the country.

Paul Gillis
Technical Director
Pacific Systems Management Pty. Ltd.
Post by Rob Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: At Least Down-Under There Is Demand...
For those that care about such issues...
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,15895569%5E153
17%5E%5Enbv%5E
Post by Rob Scott
15306,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
ibm-main
2005-07-13 11:51:18 UTC
Permalink
I (sortof) drive past Griffith each day.
This training is certainly not "big news" here in Brisbane.

Shane ...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Gillis"
Post by Paul Gillis
Nothing about this on the university web site. The 3 companies mentioned are
close to the last of the "not yet outsourced" organisations in the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Bob Shannon
2005-07-12 12:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Please reread my suggestion. It says nothing about
IEBGENER. I also wouldn't expect anyone to eliminate
IEFBR14. Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified. Of course, still perform any JCL functions
like dataset allocation and deletion.
I will modify my comment. Is this just noise or do you seriously expect
IBM to implement this?

Bob Shannon

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 12:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Shannon
Is this just noise or do you seriously expect
IBM to implement this?
It's a serious suggestion, but I do not expect IBM to
give it serious consideration. There's no money to make.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 12:43:29 UTC
Permalink
..
Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified.
..

Why code the special case?
What we have works; why complicate it with special code paths?


-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 12:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted MacNEIL
Why code the special case?
What we have works; why complicate it with special code paths?
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
John Eells
2005-07-12 13:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Post by Ted MacNEIL
Why code the special case?
What we have works; why complicate it with special code paths?
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too.
<chop>

Actually there are alternatives already. IEFBR14 is not the best
choice for data set allocation or deletion in my view,
particularly for scheduled production jobs, and especially for
jobs that others must support. IEFBR14 offers no indication of
success or failure. The condition code set by the SR 15,15 is
always zero. The indication of success or failure thus moves to
a subsequent jobstep or even a subsequent job...if you're
reasonably lucky.

This complicates diagnosis at best and leads to incorrect results
at worst. To me, IDCAMS DEFINE and ALLOCATE, TSO/E ALLOCATE, and
JCL allocation in the same jobstep (at least, for new data sets)
all seem far preferable. If you simply must use IEFBR14,
consider a subsequent IDCAMS step to verify that it did what you
expected. (But hey!, if you're using IDCAMS anyway...you get the
idea. ;-)

A JCL option to return condition code zero while processing DD
statements would do nothing to help the situation; indeed, it
would exacerbate it by encouraging behaviors I'd rather we
discouraged. One that passed an appropriate condition code might
be interesting...but I don't know how much overhead we would
really save after adding all the necessary logic to such new
processing.

Having said all that, I know (I do!) that "The world runs on
IEFBR14." That does nothing to change my opinion, though.
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
***@us.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 12:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that says, "There is no
program, >just set return code zero?" It could avoid all the setup for
calling >IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area, recovery, etc.

..
Eh?

IEFBR14 is simpler to maintain than a special case in JCL processing (especially with two JES sub-systems)


-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Rob Scott
2005-07-12 13:01:35 UTC
Permalink
If only there was an easy way to do this ...hmmmm..

How about a program that just sets the return code to zero and returned
to the user....even better than that - why don't we put it in LPA so
that there is no LOAD/DELETE overhead.....



-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Martin Kline
Sent: 12 July 2005 08:37
To: IBM-***@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements out there?
IDCAMS, IEFBR14
Post by Bob Shannon
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
Why hasn't IBM come out with a JCL option that
says, "There is no program, just set return code
zero?" It could avoid all the setup for calling
IEFBR14 - LOAD, DELETE, RB setup, save area,
recovery, etc.
Is this comment just noise or do you seriously expect
IBM to change/eliminate IEBGENER?
Please reread my suggestion. It says nothing about
IEBGENER. I also wouldn't expect anyone to eliminate
IEFBR14. Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified. Of course, still perform any JCL functions
like dataset allocation and deletion.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or
disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy
the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any
attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Edward E. Jaffe
2005-07-12 16:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Scott
If only there was an easy way to do this ...hmmmm..
How about a program that just sets the return code to zero and returned
to the user....even better than that - why don't we put it in LPA so
that there is no LOAD/DELETE overhead.....
Or one of my favorites:

//***************************/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***************************/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806

This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Edward E. Jaffe | |
| Mgr, Research & Development | ***@phoenixsoftware.com |
| Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 |
| 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 |
| Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Neal Eckhardt
2005-07-12 19:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Yea, we got that one too.

Neal
Post by Edward E. Jaffe
Post by Rob Scott
If only there was an easy way to do this ...hmmmm..
How about a program that just sets the return code to zero and returned
to the user....even better than that - why don't we put it in LPA so
that there is no LOAD/DELETE overhead.....
//***************************/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***************************/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806
This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Edward E. Jaffe | |
| Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 |
| 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 |
| Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 13:13:57 UTC
Permalink
..
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
..

Yes, but special kludges are NOT the way to go.
Boundary conditions are the great bug-a-boo!

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ed Gould
2005-07-12 20:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
...
Yes, but special kludges are NOT the way to go.
Boundary conditions are the great bug-a-boo!
Ted,

Besides who would ever need more than 640k?

Ed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Gary Green
2005-07-12 20:47:27 UTC
Permalink
No one according the Mr. Bill back in 80-something-or-other...

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@ibm-main.lst
Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:42 PM
To: IBM-***@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements out there?
IDCAMS, IEFBR14
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
...
Yes, but special kludges are NOT the way to go.
Boundary conditions are the great bug-a-boo!
Ted,

Besides who would ever need more than 640k?

Ed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the
archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 7/11/2005


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
m***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 13:19:58 UTC
Permalink
I've tried teaching them better (use IDCAMS), but
"this is the way that I've done it since 1975 and
I'm not changing!"
"What we have works; why complicate it?"


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission (including any
accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized
recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, be
aware that any review, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of
the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please contact us immediately by
electronic mail at ***@americancentury.com or notify us
immediately by telephone at 1-800-345-2021 or 816-531-5575 and destroy the
original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments).
Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
McKown, John
2005-07-12 13:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements
out there? IDCAMS, IEFBR14
Please reread my suggestion. It says nothing about
IEBGENER. I also wouldn't expect anyone to eliminate
IEFBR14. Just have the initiator recognize that the
program is effectively a null operation if so
specified. Of course, still perform any JCL functions
like dataset allocation and deletion.
I will modify my comment. Is this just noise or do you
seriously expect
IBM to implement this?
Bob Shannon
Well, if IBM were to do this, I would hope that they would also change
the DD processing so that, in this case, if the DSN is migrated and the
disp is (OLD,DELETE,DELETE) that the initiator would issue an HDELETE.
At present, we have programmers who run an IEFBR14 job step with like 80
DD statements with DSN=...,DISP=(OLD,DELETE,DELETE) and all 80 DSNs are
migrated. DFSMShsm then recalls theses DSNs, usually from tape, only to
delete them. I've tried teaching them better (use IDCAMS), but "this is
the way that I've done it since 1975 and I'm not changing!"


--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
UICI Insurance Center
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its'
content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Howard Brazee
2005-07-12 13:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abbacabba
IEFBR14 is one of our most USED program with ~1500 uses a day.
You won't gain anything by trying to make a more efficient IEFBR14. But that
isn't your goal. We don't have any business needs to have IEFBR14 run. What
we have are needs to do stuff such as delete datasets or set switches or other
stuff.

If you want efficiency here, you need to analyze the real stuff that that
IEFBR14 step is designed to accomplish.

There are some other things to analyze here - sometimes you don't need to have
your job wait while some tape is marked for deletion, for instance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 15:42:53 UTC
Permalink
..
Did you tell him about the IEFBR15 utility?
..
IBM used to use one in the early days of bench-mark(ett)ing to get rid of the low utilisation effect.

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
John Eells
2005-07-12 16:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Mullins
...
Did you tell him about the IEFBR15 utility?
...
IBM used to use one in the early days of bench-mark(ett)ing to get rid of the low utilisation effect.
<snip>

I'm not sure what that had to do with either benchmarking or
marketing.

It's been a Long Time, but as I recall, sometime in MVS/XA
Version 2 or MVS/ESA Version 3 the dispatcher was changed in such
a way that it created an LUE. That is, at low utilization
levels, the processor appeared to have less available capacity
than it actually did. As a capacity planning aid, someone (WSC,
if I remember right) suggested running one BR15 program per
processor at a very low dispatching priority and in their own
RPGN, to keep the machines 100% busy while providing a number
that could be subtracted from the system's capacity to get the
true utilization.

This effect got smaller as the machine got busier. Our capacity
planning and performance measurement team, when queried, did not
want us to run the BR15s because they only cared about peak time
measurements, when they found the LUE insignificant for their
purposes.

Corrections welcome...like I said, it's been a Long Time.
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
***@us.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Richard Pinion
2005-07-12 16:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Sorry I have the copy write on that program!!!
Post by Rob Scott
If only there was an easy way to do this ...hmmmm..
How about a program that just sets the return code to zero and returned
to the user....even better than that - why don't we put it in LPA so
that there is no LOAD/DELETE overhead.....
Or one of my favorites:

//***************************/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***************************/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806

This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Edward E. Jaffe | |
| Mgr, Research & Development | ***@phoenixsoftware.com |
| Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 |
| 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 |
| Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Edward E. Jaffe
2005-07-12 16:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Pinion
Sorry I have the copy write on that program!!!
OK. Just so long as you don't own the copyright.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Edward E. Jaffe | |
| Mgr, Research & Development | ***@phoenixsoftware.com |
| Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 |
| 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 |
| Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Richard Pinion
2005-07-12 16:09:03 UTC
Permalink
I guess I failed spelling, copy write!!!!!!!!!!

I have the copyright on that program, ABEND806.
Sorry I have the copy write on that program!!!
Post by Rob Scott
If only there was an easy way to do this ...hmmmm..
How about a program that just sets the return code to zero and returned
to the user....even better than that - why don't we put it in LPA so
that there is no LOAD/DELETE overhead.....
Or one of my favorites:

//***************************/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***************************/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806

This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Edward E. Jaffe | |
| Mgr, Research & Development | ***@phoenixsoftware.com |
| Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 |
| 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 |
| Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
McKown, John
2005-07-12 17:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements
out there? IDCAMS, IEFBR14
<snip>
Post by Rob Scott
//***************************/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***************************/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806
This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
Hum, I am sure that you, and all the others with similar programs, are
in violation of my soon to patented process for "use of non existant
computer programs in order to control the subsequent execution and
processing of computer based information structures". <GRIN>


--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
UICI Insurance Center
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its'
content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ray Mullins
2005-07-12 17:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Not in the EU! They've seen the light!

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@ibm-main.lst
Of McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday July 12 2005 10:06
To: IBM-***@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Highly used programs: any better replacements out there?
IDCAMS, IEFBR14

Hum, I am sure that you, and all the others with similar programs, are in
violation of my soon to patented process for "use of non existant computer
programs in order to control the subsequent execution and processing of
computer based information structures". <GRIN>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Howard Brazee
2005-07-12 17:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward E. Jaffe
//***************************/
//* Generate S806 Abend */
//***************************/
//ABEND806 EXEC PGM=ABEND806
This job step works as advertised without a load module of *any* kind!
Especially useful when your EasyTrieve program returns a return code that tells
us to abend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
E***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 20:57:12 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 7/12/2005 3:43:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
***@AMERITECH.NET writes:

Besides who would ever need more than 640k?

Ed
Same department that only needs 5 M/F worldwide(for everybody!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
D***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-12 21:03:58 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 7/12/2005 3:43:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
***@AMERITECH.NET writes:

Besides who would ever need more than 640k?



I squeezed all my application code into a 16K model 30 in 1967, and there
was still 6K for the DOS/360 Supervisor. We had "oceans of core" available.

Also, regarding ABEND806's being copywrighted, I think XPECT806 is an alias
of ABEND806. So, depending on which entries are in the load library's
directory, using XPECT806 might or might not be an infringement (to weave an
already expunged thread into this one).

Bill Fairchild

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 21:18:43 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
..
..

The above was not from me.
It was included as quoted text so I could pontificate on it.

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ed Gould
2005-07-12 21:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted MacNEIL
...
Post by m***@ibm-main.lst
...
Why do anything? DOS 1.0 worked, too
..
...
The above was not from me.
It was included as quoted text so I could pontificate on it.
-teD
Ted,

Say hi to the pope as well;_0

Ed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 21:20:06 UTC
Permalink
..
Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
..

With QEMM V7 I got over 690.

-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 21:18:57 UTC
Permalink
..

Ted,

Besides who would ever need more than 640k?
..

I guess my point is not getting across.

I'm saying a simple load of IEFBR14 is better than re-writing JES to have special cases.
No more! No less!

The fewer boundary conditions we have, the fewer bugs!


De-Bugging:
The art of removing software flaws.

Programming:
The art of inserting software flaws.

We have a fairly good interface; why add kludges to it.


-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Ted MacNEIL
2005-07-12 21:59:20 UTC
Permalink
..

Say hi to the pope as well
..

I meant it by the second meaning:
(V): to deliver dogmatic opinions

(Interesting roots for the Pope & the opinion)


-teD

In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
--Deming

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
D***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-14 02:01:53 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 7/13/2005 8:35:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
shmuel+ibm-***@PATRIOT.NET writes:

Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient?

No. Yes. On what processor?

Even in the S/360 days the answer would depend on the box. Likewise SR
versus SLR vs LA.



Right on, Shmuel.

I learned Assembler's op codes on a S/360 model 30. I still prefer to do a
SLR to clear a register over SR and XR because SLR was the fastest way on the
model 30. But on today's big-end processors, the time to execute any one
given instruction depends on 853 variables, give or take πr². But the real
bottom line is that the difference in how long it takes any of the different
possible ways is vanishingly minute, and only of practical value if that
instruction must be executed thousands of times per second. The amount of time it
takes a programmer to think about which of three different instructions to use
costs millions of times more than the cost recovered by executing the
optimal instruction.

However, even though it is not of much value, it is certainly of interest.
If you really want to know how to speed instructions up, you must be prepared
to read lots of highly arcane technical papers on instruction processing
units, pipelines, instruction caches, translation lookaside buffers, data
caches, bus width, look-ahead instruction preprocessing, multiple processor
serialization effects, instruction predecessor relationships, et alia. That's where
the 853 variables comes from. The model 30 had a simple set of numbers with
no variables. Load Address was something like 19 microseconds no matter
what.

Bill Fairchild

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Gerhard Postpischil
2005-07-14 03:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@ibm-main.lst
However, even though it is not of much value, it is certainly of interest.
If you really want to know how to speed instructions up, you must be prepared
to read lots of highly arcane technical papers on instruction processing
units, pipelines, instruction caches, translation lookaside buffers, data
caches, bus width, look-ahead instruction preprocessing, multiple processor
serialization effects, instruction predecessor relationships, et alia. That's where
the 853 variables comes from. The model 30 had a simple set of numbers with
no variables. Load Address was something like 19 microseconds no matter
what.
Or you could use a little assembler program, using STCK or TIMEUSED, and
execute contemplated code several hundred to several thousand times
each, and compare the results. No reading of papers, no head scratching,
just numbers for your environment.....

One interesting result was that one MVCL for 1K takes about as long as
four MVCs of 256; below that MVCs are faster on every processor I
tested. Another surprise (?) was that two STs were faster than an STM
for two registers.

Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Chris Langford
2005-07-14 10:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@ibm-main.lst
In a message dated 7/13/2005 8:35:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Wouldn't XR R15,R15 have been more efficient?
No. Yes. On what processor?
Even in the S/360 days the answer would depend on the box. Likewise SR
versus SLR vs LA.
Right on, Shmuel.
I learned Assembler's op codes on a S/360 model 30. I still prefer to do a
SLR to clear a register over SR and XR because SLR was the fastest way on the
model 30. But on today's big-end processors, the time to execute any one
given instruction depends on 853 variables, give or take �����r². But the real
bottom line is that the difference in how long it takes any of the different
possible ways is vanishingly minute, and only of practical value if that
instruction must be executed thousands of times per second. The amount of time it
takes a programmer to think about which of three different instructions to use
costs millions of times more than the cost recovered by executing the
optimal instruction.
However, even though it is not of much value, it is certainly of interest.
If you really want to know how to speed instructions up, you must be prepared
to read lots of highly arcane technical papers on instruction processing
units, pipelines, instruction caches, translation lookaside buffers, data
caches, bus width, look-ahead instruction preprocessing, multiple processor
serialization effects, instruction predecessor relationships, et alia. That's where
the 853 variables comes from. The model 30 had a simple set of numbers with
no variables. Load Address was something like 19 microseconds no matter
what.
Not quite, IIRC if the index register is not zero then add a few
microseconds for any instruction with index reg.
Post by D***@ibm-main.lst
Bill Fairchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
..
--
Chris Langford,
Cestrian Software:
Consulting services for: VM, VSE, MVS, z/VM, z/OS, OS/2, P/3x0 etc.

z/FM - A toolbox for VM & MVS at http://zfm.cestrian.com
Deva Woodcrafting:
Furniture creation, House remodeling, Wagon restoration etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
D***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-14 12:18:53 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 7/14/2005 1:25:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
However, even though it is not of much value, it is certainly of
interest.
If you really want to know how to speed instructions up, you must be
prepared
to read lots of highly arcane technical papers on instruction processing
units, pipelines, instruction caches, translation lookaside buffers, data
caches, bus width, look-ahead instruction preprocessing, multiple
processor
serialization effects, instruction predecessor relationships, et alia.
...



Or you could use a little assembler program, using STCK or TIMEUSED, and
execute contemplated code several hundred to several thousand times
each, and compare the results. No reading of papers, no head scratching,
just numbers for your environment.....

Right. If I wanted to know how long instruction op code XYZ takes to
execute, I would certainly do it the way you suggested. Reading of papers and head
scratching would be interesting to me since I am interested in learning how
instruction processing takes place on a low level - in general. But for any
one particular op code I would perform the experiment you described. I also
once put a STCK immediately in front of and immediately behind an instruction
that I wanted to learn about - Store SCHIB - and found it took something
like 60 microseconds, which was a huge amount of time compared to all other
instructions. After I saw that, I removed the Store SCHIB since it wasn't
necessary. The Princ. of Ops even warns about using this instruction a lot - can
cause performance problems - must be doing some serialization in the channel
subsystem. To be really, really accurate, you must also first find out how
much overhead you are imposing on your experiment by using STCK and any looping
instructions, so you have to test each of them several thousand times and
get averages.


One interesting result was that one MVCL for 1K takes about as long as
four MVCs of 256; below that MVCs are faster on every processor I
tested. Another surprise (?) was that two STs were faster than an STM
for two registers.


These are surprising and interesting results. But I would still not be
motivated to perform a timing experiment unless the code I was thinking about
optimizing was going to be executed a very large number of times per second in
some critical path or perhaps in a tight loop. If I were building a compiler,
however, I would be concerned about trying to optimize code execution as
much as possible in a generalized way, which means you would not know what
machine the code was to be run on with individual machine peculiarities to
consider. But I don't build compilers.

Bill Fairchild

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
D***@ibm-main.lst
2005-07-14 12:24:52 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 7/14/2005 5:33:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
***@CESTRIAN.COM writes:

The model 30 had a simple set of numbers with
no variables. Load Address was something like 19 microseconds no matter
what.
Not quite, IIRC if the index register is not zero then add a few
microseconds for any instruction with index reg.





You remembered more correctly than I did. I forgot about that one variable.
Since I was just beginning to write code, I never did anything complex like
use index registers on RX instructions. :-)

Bill Fairchild

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Craddock, Chris
2005-07-14 14:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerhard Postpischil
One interesting result was that one MVCL for 1K takes about
as long as four MVCs of 256; below that MVCs are faster on
every processor I tested.
Probably not as surprising as you think. There is only one
"move" instruction on the z Series. MVCL and other complex
moves are implemented in millicode. That said, I always use
MVCL when the length(s) are not known at assembly time because
even with the setup cost, an MVCL beats an EX of an MVC.
Post by Gerhard Postpischil
Another surprise (?) was that two STs were faster than an STM
for two registers.
Once again, no big surprise in terms of cache and memory
design. It might even turn out that the advantage holds true
for a larger number of registers. Try it.

And in any case "who cares"? We should not be obsessing about
which instruction is faster. They are all stupidly fast and
it doesn't matter a lick anymore unless you are the exquisitely
hand-crafted z/OS dispatcher or some similar thing that runs
a billion times a minute.

CC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Loading...