Did you mean 42 subtype 6? Yifat -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ron Hawkins Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage
Leonardo, Try the Type 64 subtype 64 record. Be aware that some addresses do not write an interval record, so best to include an IPL in your data collection. This will allow you to split directory processing our from the total IO count. Type 14/15 records do not show the dataset name in a concatenation (unless I'm out of date) so you have some additional research to do once you have your counts. Ron -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Improve LLA/VLF usage Skip: I think you are on the money. From 30 years of looking at SMF records the excp counts for load libraries are notoriously under reported. Ed On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: > FREEZE is indeed the 'culprit' that complicates content management of > LLA libraries. I honestly don't know what SMF data, if any, would > suggest likely candidates. Historically the low hanging fruit has > included Clist, Rexx, and STEPLIB libraries allocated to a large > number of TSO users. But Clist/Rexx libraries are just those most > likely to confound a variety folks who update them. Everything on the > mainframe is so much faster than it used to be, from processor to > DASD, that the improvement derived from LLA is harder than ever to > measure. Or to even perceive. > > On the other hand, the time it takes a programmer to solve a > confounding mystery has been fairly constant over time. As Shmuel > would say, it's your dog. > > . > . > JO.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 626-302-7535 Office > 323-715-0595 Mobile > jo.skip.robin...@sce.com > > > > From: Leonardo Vaz <leonardo....@cn.ca> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, > Date: 02/18/2013 06:06 AM > Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM- > m...@listserv.ua.edu> > > > > Thank you very much for expressing your opinion Skip, I am aware and I > agree that LLA can be a pain to manage, maybe even worse than a > linklist dataset, because you also have to remember to freeze the > library in LLA. > In my search for good candidates I plan to exclude libraries that are > updates regularly. > > I am not even sure if I will find any good candidates at all, but do > you think SMF records type 14 is the way to go? > > Thanks again, > Leonardo Vaz > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM- m...@listserv.ua.edu] > On Behalf Of Skip Robinson > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 5:20 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage > > However you finally select candidates, be aware of some behavior > changes that *other* folks in your shop may find disturbing. Not to > mention > *yourself* later on down the road. > > A library managed by LLA will not show updated contents until after an > LLA REFRESH. For example, if you update a member via IEBCOPY, you will > continue to observe the old data via Browse. If you add a net new > member, you will get 'not found' when trying to browse or get > attributes for that specific member by name. You will see the member > when you display the entire member list but get 'not found' when > trying to select the specific member. > > In other words, give some thought to whether a smidgeon of performance > improvement here and there is worth the larger hassle in managing > library contents. We've resisted the urge to include new libraries in > LLA/ VLF for that reason. The more people in your shop who might need > to manage these libraries, the wider and deeper the confusion factor. > Just sayin'. > > . > . > JO.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 626-302-7535 Office > 323-715-0595 Mobile > jo.skip.robin...@sce.com > > > > From: Leonardo Vaz <leonardo....@cn.ca> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, > Date: 02/15/2013 01:13 PM > Subject: Improve LLA/VLF usage > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM- > m...@listserv.ua.edu> > > > > Hello All, > > I was looking into improving performance by placing load libraries > that have a high quantity of fetches in LLA/VLF. > I was thinking on using SMF type 14 records to find out the good > candidates. Is that a good idea? Any other ideas on how I could find > out the most used load libraries? > > Thank you! > Leonardo Vaz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
