Take a look at "Overhead Deltas for VSE Releases" which is page 5 of the following PDF:
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/zseries/zos/vse/pdf3/techconf2007/sanantonio/E54_zVSE_Performance_Update.pdf Does your situation nearly match those numbers? Or are they quite a bit more? If quite a bit more, then I wonder what is causing it. If they nearly match, then you need some planning in order to do the proper migration. As the foil says, there is more overhead as you migrate to newer releases and functions. Apples to apples, it's just more overhead. But it enables you to start using new functions and facilities. That can lessen some of the overhead and/or provide better service to your users. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting >>> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marcelo_Fazzito?= <mfazz...@bancocredicoop.coop> 5/1/2009 1:26 PM >>> Gentlemen, Our experience is from VSE/ESA 2.3 + VM/ESA 3.1 to z/VM 5.2 and then to 5.3. We run in a 9672, z890 and now in a z9. It is easy to upgrade VM releases, but we spent three years migrating from ACF/2 to Top Secret as directed ( forced ) by CA. This was the real problem but I discarded the idea to work in a second level VM the third level VSE. At the same time we migrated from ACF/2 to Top Secret in the VSE/ESA and were ready to go for z/VSE. We have half of the VSÉs in z/VSE 3.1 and stopped because the CPU increase from VSE 2.3 to zVSE 3.1 was between 15 and 20 percent. And no CICS was migrated to Transaction Server. The issue is that VSE/ESA, VM/ESA and ACF/2 have no support but there are some costs to pay, working and CPU overhead. Regards. Marcelo.
