Oh, sorry, didn’t mean to leave this hanging - I had to leave yesterday and am just getting back to this.
The points are all very interesting - no, I haven't got to the bottom of this yet - but all of this is helpful - particularly the bit about not expecting the used memory to increase with REGION=0M and the suggestion of RPTSTG. (not denigrating / ignoring the other suggestions, just that's what I am focusing on at the moment). It's a customer COBOL program - quite long and involved. I haven't grokked it in fullness yet - it may well have the attributes someone suggested (variable table searched inefficiently). Will chime back in when I have results / additional questions. Thanks all. Rich Way -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof FYI, OP wrote "Customer found that one release of our product got an 878 when a prior release had not." I don't deny that storage utilization is changing with region size; my point was just that AFAIK LE's startup GETMAINs are based on coded parameters, not region size discovery. Yes, I hope the OP does not leave us hanging here. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David W Noon Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:39 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:28:35 -0700, Charles Mills (charl...@mcn.org) wrote about "Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof" (in <0d1501d30563$107e9a30$317bce90$@mcn.org>): > Not a huge expert but I do a certain amount of tuning of storage > requirements as the developer of a vendor product, and I have the > distinct impression that LE's initial program runtime storage > parameters are fixed at either compile or startup time and based on > supplied parameters, independent of the actual region size. That is, > there is no algorithm like "get half the free storage." It is "get X bytes." The change in memory consumption in the step termination reports would suggest that memory acquisition is varying with region size in this case. The fact that there is no S80A, S878, etc., abend would indicate that something inside the application knows how large the region is and does not exceed its bounds. COBOL programs are not usually that clever. > Of course, region size affects the possibility of an x78 failure if > the program requires more storage than initially obtained. That has always been its purpose. > I notice the OP, who was posting hourly or so, has gone quiet. > Perhaps the problem has been located. It would be interesting to know the final cause and resolution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
