Oh, the elapsed time absolutely changed in a very noticeable way, of course. 12.55 minutes with REGION=0M, 0.60 minutes without any REGION specified. This is (more-or-less) repeatable at will. But the work being done (number of records read, processed, written, and the nature of the processing) was identical in both cases.
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Gerhard Adam Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof How much did the elapsed time change? I find it hard to believe that the job actually ran 22 x longer and that wasn't notable as a difference. Adam -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Way, Richard Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof Thanks! I'm a little reluctant to run a job that already takes 12 CPU-minutes with RPTSTG(ON), but I may be able to cut the test data back significantly and still see the relative increase, in which case this may be very useful. I'll read through that tuning document as well! -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof Running both with RPTSTG(ON) may provide insight. See also: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27018287&aid=1 Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Way, Richard <richard....@hpe.com> wrote: > Same result, same return code - yes. Customer found that one release of > our product got an 878 when a prior release had not. I was > experimenting to see if I could drive the 878 by finding the point > (REGION=xxxx) at which the 878 first occurs in the two releases of our > product (to see if it was just "normal" additional memory needs or > something more sinister). As it turned out, I got this other behavior > (wild CPU consumption) in the course of experimentation. > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Allan Kielstra > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:27 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof > > I want to be clear on one thing....The program produces the same > result and has the same return code in both cases? Possibly another > way of asking the same thing is: why did you alter the region size in the > first place? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
