Isn't that called bull....? Lloyd
----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Hammock <m...@hammocktree.us> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Fri, June 10, 2011 1:46:05 PM Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC 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 >>> >>> >> > >
