|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
hey, your cics people have already said that it sucks.
any reason though has not been given to making this a batch application.
since you are COBOL CALLing all the sub-modules it would be a relatively quck conversion - unless of course you included all the cics garbage in the linkage section of these cobol modules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bill O'Boyle
CICS Moderator
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 2501
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
|
|
|
|
Dick,
The OP has still not given us an idea of the amount of WS in the CALLED sub-programs.
Mural,
Can you give us the total amount of WS found in the CALLED sub-programs?
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkmurali
Warnings : 1
Active User
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
|
|
Bill,
i checked the modules which has compiler option as NOOPTIMIZE.
Dick,
My application is not only used by one system, if i suggest for batch,i have to look for Business functions. mostly my client would reject my proposal if i go with batch option.
Is ther any CICS command to check the CICS memory utilization for a Transaction?
Thanks,
Murali |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
even the title is just plain wrong...
I might agree on something like... reduce the overall storage requirement
reducing the load module size only does not really make any sense IMHO
| Quote: |
| Can you please explain more specific how when 'OPT' compiler option increase the load module size? |
/compiler theory on
there are <generally> two options when optimizing
optimize for speed, optimize for storage
the two things quite too often contradict themselves
optimize for speed usually mean inlining and duplicating code
optimize for storage means calling common subroutines
but even a simple loop can be expanded in different ways according to the optimization required
/approximation on
| Code: |
let' s make an example with a table/array of fixed size
20 fullword that should be initialized with zeroes
optimized for speed
xr reg,reg
st reg,array
st reg,array+4
st reg,array+8
...
st reg,array+76
instructions executed,
setup 1
store 20
total 21
storage
setup 4
store 80
total 84
optimized for storage
la reg1,20
xr reg2,reg2
la reg3,array-4
loop la reg3,4(,r3)
st reg2,0(reg3)
bct r1,loop
instructions executed
setup 3
store 60
total 63
storage used
setup 10
store 12
total 22
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
| pkmurali wrote: |
| then only i can say this system is poor. |
don't get too high-up on your horse, son.
your obvious lack of understanding of basic concepts tends to invalidate any expert-opinion that you may have to offer.
Bill,
I believe the TS is still trying to figure out what he has. His only responses have been continual hopes for the 'magic bullet' and refusal to answer basic questions - such as mine - why the refusal to consider making this a batch app?
well, finally got an answer to that one.
maybe the problem is this is a hold over from earlier designs
(maybe the fact that they are still using cobol that has been out of support for nearly 20 years is a hint)
they are doing too much with one transaction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| continual hopes for the 'magic bullet' and refusal to answer basic questions |
And there are more and more places that desperately need a magic bullet. Largely because of the incredible mountains of sludge that have been implemented by far less than qualified developers.
And this is on the rise. Several of us (old folks of my acquaintance) have wondered if IBM can make new, more powerful cpus and dasd fast enough to keep up with the monsters that have been created and appear to be growing. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
looks like the MS syndrome,
why write good software and have competent people
when a more powerful cpu and ibmmainframes.com
will take care of everything
i do not know if  or  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkmurali
Warnings : 1
Active User
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
|
|
Dick,
My appolgies. I din't ignored your opinion on batch application to replace the online. But I like to know,if there is any possibilty to dig further to utilize any options left in CICS to satisfy my requirement. Thanks Dick,Bill, Enricho for all the inputs given.
Regards,
Murali. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
Murali,
without knowing specifics of your app, it is hard to provide suggestions.
you mentioned:
| Quote: |
| My application is not only used by one system |
sorry, I am not trying to be an asshole, but I don't really know what you mean. Especially since you said
| Quote: |
| if i suggest for batch,i have to look for Business functions. mostly my client would reject my proposal if i go with batch option. |
My assumption is that this is a legacy system and the client does not want to spend any money upgrading.
For one reason or another, your cics (or are they the clients cics support people) complained about this transaction.
is it really the memory that is a problem? It could be task type switching,
keyword thread safe
Bill O'Boyle is the one to lead that conversation.
reason I bring it up, it that violations of thread-safe result in time-resouces being consumed.
Again, without a complete understanding of this app, we are wasting your time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
