| IBM MAINFRAME HELP FORUMS for COBOL, JCL, CICS, DB2, IMS etc...
Help & Support Forums for IBM Mainframe computers Applications like COBOL, JCL, CICS, DB2, FileAid, DFSORT, Endevor, Xpediter, CoolGen, CA-7, CA-11, AbendAid, IMS, IDMS, PL/I, MqSeries, SyncSort, Assembler, VSAM, ISPF, ChangeMan, Easytrieve, InterTest, REXX, CLIST etc...
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark loftus
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Most efficient copy utility |
|
|
| I would like to try to establish what is the most cpu efficient way of copying a DSN through batch. If anyone has already done any research on this i would be very interested in the results. A league table of results would be very useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico-sorichetti
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 2668
Location: italy
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: Reply to: Most efficient copy utility |
|
|
Well said, Give it a try and let us know...
program/utilities to test
- IDCAMS
- IEBGENER
- ICEGENER
- DFDSS
- RYO assembler ( excp level )
run with different blocksizes, different lrecls
post the results |
|
| Back to top |
|
dick scherrer
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8037
Location: 221 B Baker St
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
Quote: what is the most cpu efficient way of copying a DSN through batch Usually, cpu usage is not an issue when copying data. The process is nearly always i/o bound. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bill Dennis
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Location: Iowa, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When comparing to IEBGENER and RYO, we found ICEGENER to be the least CPU and lowest EXCP counts for larger file sizes but it was slightly worse than RYO for very small files. |
|
| Back to top |
|
dick scherrer
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8037
Location: 221 B Baker St
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
ICEGENER invokes the sort.
On many systems, IEBGENER executions are intercepted and sort/copy is used instead of GENER.
The sort products (DFSORT & Syncsort) have more "start-up" costs, but more than make up for it when processing anything other than small files. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Douglas Wilder
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 188
Location: Deerfield IL
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
In very limited testing of copying PS files My results of relative cost at this shop were:
Repro 1.0 Gener 1.63 SrchPrnt .99 DF Sort .39 |
|
| Back to top |
|
gcicchet
Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
see this linkhttp://ibmmainframes.com/viewtopic.php?t=25928&highlight=gerry+iebgener+idcams
Gerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
Terry Heinze
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 101
Location: Richfield, MN, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've read a lot of discussions of this over the years and the general consensus is that SORT (whether it be DFSORT, Syncsort, or CA-Sort) usually outperforms the rest. As enrico suggested, give them all a try and report back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
THIS IS AN ARCIVE FORUM IN READ ONLY MODE. IF YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR DOUBTS USE THE ACTUAL FORUM
|