Personally, I would not want to try to defend either one as being especially
useful/meaningful, especially to an individual user. Is "REXX Clauses per
Second" any more meaningful to typical users than "Millions of instructions
per second"? They are really basically the same number, just different
unit of measure. Either one could be used to compare one dimension of
performance between two processors and that is about all. The raw REXXCPS
numbers are getting so large now (2,622,295 in the example) that they are
cumbersome so the MIPS numbers are a bit more convenient. Of course,
pretty soon we may have to start using BIPS (Billions of .....). Let's see,
what word can we find that starts with "B" that means "Meaningless"?
Mike Hammock
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Koehler" <vmr...@tampabay.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:58 PM
To: <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC
That's an interesting observation, but what does it have to do with how
much work a regular VM userid can get done using Rexx? That's the whole
point of REXXCPS.
Les
Mike Hammock wrote:
I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives
an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating.
Those of you with access to various systems might want to see if this
comes anywhere to close for your system. This would make the system
below (2622295 CPS) about 1456 MIPS.
Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single
processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to
multiple by the number of processors and "adjust" for N-way
"interference".
Mike Hammock
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Hayden" <bjhay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM
To: <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC
I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196):
rexxcps
----- REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second -----
REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998
System is: CMS
Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations
Calibration (empty DO): 0.00001351 secs (average of 100)
Spooling trace NOTERM
Spooling now back on TERM
Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100
iterations)
Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds
Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second
Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06
But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling
the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after
the exec is compiled.)
rexxcpsc
----- REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second -----
REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999
System is: CMS
Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations
Calibration (empty DO): 0.00000467 secs (average of 100)
Spooling trace NOTERM
Spooling now back on TERM
Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100
iterations)
Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.000070788 seconds
Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second
Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler <vmr...@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation)
recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when?
See:
http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html
for his collection of data.
If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the
page.
Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid.
Les
--
Bruce Hayden
z/VM and Linux on System z ATS
IBM, Endicott, NY
