Thanks for the thoughts, Ed. Appreciated. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Has anyone measured CPU savings using external SORT's vs internal (COBOL) SORT's?
Peter: This story spans 2 decades of stories and hist and OS/s (and sorts). In the 70's we were gasping for CPU and looked at practically everything. We tried doing things to economize on CPU resources. We tore apart programs and tried to quantify items. We even had the assembler people write sort exits E15, E35 (and god yes E61) amongst others. I think looking back it came down with COBOL (I have long lost the papers we wrote). That the "worst" performance was what you did when you did during the input procedure and output procedure. By "did" I mean how much other I/O and CPU the program did. BUT in the end splitting up programs did little in saving time (CPU & ELAPSED). Yes sure there is step init/ending time etc etc but we are usually talking small amounts of time . Don't get me wrong adding up times amounts to at best 10-15 minutes a day, but usually re-examining tape unmount/remount time was most of it. With a few judicious disp=(new,pass) it saved most of it. With disk there is little to manage so if you manage the resources well its very little to save. USING DISK input output takes it down even further, so doing a good job on Disk should help. The second thing is that difficulty in sorting with a program is that when it breaks (and it does) your people have to be pretty good debuggers. We had a few programmers who tried to dump their S0C4's and S0C7's on us. My rule of thumb is that only when they can present a dump that us SYSPROGS can't explain while we take any responsibility. I have kick out several programmers who were to lazy to debug. Ed On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > I mean the second, using the COBOL SORT verb to invoke the SORT > from within the program. And I tend to agree with you. Just > looking for reasons other than the ones I have thought of to refute > the claim that was made. > > Peter -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
