|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
sivasu_usavis
New User
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I'm facing a difficult issue. Its all about performance of the program. Is there any way possible to reduce the CPU run time of the Job which is executing a IMS program?
Previously It was running with minimum CPU time. Now it got increased. Its a IMS program, It itself calling a sub program as it was executing earlier.
Can you tell me, the possibilities which causes this situation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aaru
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 1287
Location: Chennai, India
|
|
|
|
sivasu,
| Quote: |
| It was running with minimum CPU time. Now it got increased |
What changes did u make? Adding functionalities will definitely increase the CPU time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sivasu_usavis
New User
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
| We didnt add any more functionalities on existing program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10889
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
What makes You think that You have a problem??
Higher CPU consumption is not a symptom of something going wrong...
maybe simply there is more work to do
something has certainly changed in Your "environment"
it' s Your job to find out what!
we certainly cannot tell from here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sivasu_usavis
New User
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
I understand your reply e-s. I would say 'environment' change is one of the possibility to cause this. Friend E-S Can you bit elabrate What exactly you meant the 'Environment' Change.
I'm not sure, whether size of the data causes this issue? Any other, possibilities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10889
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
More work to do means more resources used !
what about the elapsed time ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sivasu_usavis
New User
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
| Total elapsed time is all about 2 hrs and 20 ins. But CPU time is 18 mins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10889
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Total elapsed time is all about 2 hrs and 20 ins. But CPU time is 18 mins. |
Ok as an absolute measurement,
You complained about cpu usage being higher than before,
what was the elapsed before?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sivasu_usavis
New User
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
| Before it was all abt 10 mins. elasped time is abt 30 mins |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10889
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
Please stop complaining,
assuming a steady state work flow increment
there is absolutely nothing wrong whit those numbers
What made You think about having a problem
again..
how many records were processed before
and how many after ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sivasu_usavis
New User
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
| My compliant is like, whether it was caused by any kind insufficient buffer size or like that? I expecting suggestions, which may cause this. Not expecting any kind of ready made ans, ma fren e-s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10889
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
| again i ask how may record were processed before and how many after |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10889
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
but...
You are looking at the wrong side of things,
I would be much more worried about the elapsed rather than the CPU
the elapsed is almost five time, the cpu did not even double
meditate please and come up with more meaningful information
again in a changing environment
elaps(30) cpu(10)
elaps(150) cpu(18)
are more than normal ,
also remember, that due to buffering and access mode the resource consumption growth
might not be linear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
