Arthur, Actually, this has long been recognized and ICEGENER is often made an alias of IEBGENER. It automatically transfers control to IEBGENER is there are any control statements (more or less).
Tom Harper IMS Utilities Development Team NEON Enterprise Software Sugar Land, TX -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur T. Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 6:55 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: CPU time differences for the same job On 5 Feb 2008 13:52:49 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main (Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Harper) wrote: >About 10% of the CPU was consumed by IEBGENER It's amazing how inefficient IEBGENER is. If you were to change all[1] use of IEBGENER jobs to use ICEGENER (or SYNCGENR) or to an in-house-written copy program, you could reduce the CPU consumed in copies by a factor of 5 to 10. It reduces both CPU and wall-clock time. [1] The alternate programs generally work only for the case where there's no SYSIN control statements for IEBGENER. In my experience, there is only a very small percentage of IEBGENER jobs with SYSIN. -- I cannot receive mail at the address this was sent from. To reply directly, send to ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
