>If you're looking for improved DASD response time, you're looking in the >wrong place. Pre-processed panels save on CPU. Every ISPF panel must >be tokenized. Those that are pre-processed bypass the vast majority of >that processing, thus reducing the path length required to "load" them.
Having spent the last 2 years coding 10,000 lines into ISPF panels, among other things, I can definitely see the merit in Ed Jaffe's argument. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Edward Jaffe <edja...@phoenixsoftware.com>wrote: > Ted MacNEIL wrote: > >> I never personally noticed any performance gain from preprocessing. >>> >>> >> >> Even back with slow DASD, I never saw a performance benefit that >> out-weighed the admin overhead. >> Today's DASD, I'd say forget it. >> >> > > If you're looking for improved DASD response time, you're looking in the > wrong place. Pre-processed panels save on CPU. Every ISPF panel must be > tokenized. Those that are pre-processed bypass the vast majority of that > processing, thus reducing the path length required to "load" them. > > -- > Edward E Jaffe > Phoenix Software International, Inc > 831 Parkview Drive North > El Segundo, CA 90245 > 310-338-0400 x318 > edja...@phoenixsoftware.com > http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > -- George Henke (C) 845 401 5614 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
