Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Running a compiled REXXCPS, I get these results: Run 1. Performance: 6587190 REXX clauses per second Run 2. Performance: 7755269 REXX clauses per second Run 3. Performance: 7560471 REXX clauses per second This is on a lightly loaded z10 (Real CPU ID = 000s20978000). The numbers appear to vary directly with the CPU Busy values. The LPAR shares its 5 CPs with two other lightly loaded LPARs that are capped, with very low ceilings. If I run the uncompiled version, the result is approximately 25% of the compiled version's. I haven't had a chance to try it in one of the IFL LPARs. It is tough finding a time when they are not extremely busy. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bruce Hayden Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 7:13 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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Actually, it is *most* useful to the individual user! I've used it over the years to compare different pc systems and new releases of Rexx on VM and ooRexx on the pc. Before I retired from IBM, I used it regularly to give me an idea of how the customer would perceive a change to a Rexx application, since I would have to promote the application from Dev - Test - 3 production systems. Once the compiler was released, the differences between hardware pretty much became a moot point. On the VM system I have access to, I get from 6800 to 26000 REXXCPS because VM is emulated under Unix. So not all the numbers are large! Obviously that system wouldn't be appropriate for a large, interpreted Rexx application. In fact, it takes it 10 seconds to run REXXCPS. As someone pointed out on the RexxLA list, the real value of REXXCPS is that it has been there for years (since 1989), letting us see the progress that hardware and software have made over time. Mike Cowlishaw, inventor of Rexx and retired IBM Fellow, developed REXXCPS after analyzing thousands of lines of Trace output from IBM volunteers all over the world, so the algorithms are representative of production code of the time. Les Mike Hammock wrote: 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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Anyone object to my collecting the numbers posted and sending them to Mike, all in *one* email! Les Les Koehler 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:25:05 -0400 Mike Hammock said: I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. Mike - I'm running a FLEX-ES box that is knee capped at 18 MIPS. I added your formula to the end of REXXCPS. Here are the results on a completely idle system: - REXXCPS 2.2 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 10 measures of 30 iterations CP IND = AVGPROC-011% 01 Performance: 24794 REXX clauses per second 24794/1800= 14 MIPS Ready; T=11.08/11.22 06:39:22 rexxcps 1000 - REXXCPS 2.2 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 1000 measures of 30 iterations CP IND = AVGPROC-100% 01 Performance: 23699 REXX clauses per second 23699/1800= 13 MIPS Ready; T=1133.43/1143.71 07:38:38 I ran REXXCPS at 30 and 1000 three times and each time the 30 measures indicated 14 MIPS while 1000 indicated 13 MIPS. At the end of August we will downgrade to an 8 MIP box. It will be interesting to see what REXXCPS reports then. /Fran Hensler at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania USA for 48 years mailto:f...@zvm.sru.edu http://zvm.sru.edu/~fjh +1.724.794.6172 Yes, Virginia, there is a Slippery Rock --
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Actually, the 1800 factor gives a slightly conservative number, so 14 on a box that is supposed to be capped at 18 MIPS is probably about right. If you have the box I think you do, I would have said it is probably 16 MIPS, so the 14 is reasonably close. When I developed the 1800 number we had some good reasons to keep the MIPS estimates on the low side. I've been running rexxcps on small systems from the early P/390s on and have a fairly decent record of various emulated and non-emulated systems. Using rexxcps only measures the cpu speed of a single processor, but for typical workloads it does give a pretty good indication of the relative processor speeds. If anyone is interested, the current IBM zPDT based systems provide between 150 and 200 rexxcps based MIPS per enabled processor on current IBM System X servers, depending on the processor speed. As usual, MIPS is as meaningful or meaningless as you want it to be. Mike Hammock -- From: Fran Hensler f...@zvm.sru.edu Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 7:45 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:25:05 -0400 Mike Hammock said: I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. Mike - I'm running a FLEX-ES box that is knee capped at 18 MIPS. I added your formula to the end of REXXCPS. Here are the results on a completely idle system: - REXXCPS 2.2 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 10 measures of 30 iterations CP IND = AVGPROC-011% 01 Performance: 24794 REXX clauses per second 24794/1800= 14 MIPS Ready; T=11.08/11.22 06:39:22 rexxcps 1000 - REXXCPS 2.2 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 1000 measures of 30 iterations CP IND = AVGPROC-100% 01 Performance: 23699 REXX clauses per second 23699/1800= 13 MIPS Ready; T=1133.43/1143.71 07:38:38 I ran REXXCPS at 30 and 1000 three times and each time the 30 measures indicated 14 MIPS while 1000 indicated 13 MIPS. At the end of August we will downgrade to an 8 MIP box. It will be interesting to see what REXXCPS reports then. /Fran Hensler at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania USA for 48 years mailto:f...@zvm.sru.edu http://zvm.sru.edu/~fjh +1.724.794.6172 Yes, Virginia, there is a Slippery Rock --
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
The part that I consider to be not very useful is the specific units that are used. The relative number, whether REXXCPS, MIPS, BIPS, or something else is very useful for exactly the purpose you describe. It's the name or unit of measure you attach to the number that I think is somewhat less than useful. You could call it processor inches if you want to, and the usefulness stays the same. As long as you keep in mind the limitations of the measurement technique, it really doesn't matter just what units you prefer to attach to the number. Mike Hammock -- From: Les Koehler vmr...@tampabay.rr.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 5:05 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC Actually, it is *most* useful to the individual user! I've used it over the years to compare different pc systems and new releases of Rexx on VM and ooRexx on the pc. Before I retired from IBM, I used it regularly to give me an idea of how the customer would perceive a change to a Rexx application, since I would have to promote the application from Dev - Test - 3 production systems. Once the compiler was released, the differences between hardware pretty much became a moot point. On the VM system I have access to, I get from 6800 to 26000 REXXCPS because VM is emulated under Unix. So not all the numbers are large! Obviously that system wouldn't be appropriate for a large, interpreted Rexx application. In fact, it takes it 10 seconds to run REXXCPS. As someone pointed out on the RexxLA list, the real value of REXXCPS is that it has been there for years (since 1989), letting us see the progress that hardware and software have made over time. Mike Cowlishaw, inventor of Rexx and retired IBM Fellow, developed REXXCPS after analyzing thousands of lines of Trace output from IBM volunteers all over the world, so the algorithms are representative of production code of the time. Les Mike Hammock wrote: 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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 seconds Performance: 14126688
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Well, Mike defined the meaning of the unit of measure on his web site: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html How much more useful could it be? Les Mike Hammock wrote: The part that I consider to be not very useful is the specific units that are used. The relative number, whether REXXCPS, MIPS, BIPS, or something else is very useful for exactly the purpose you describe. It's the name or unit of measure you attach to the number that I think is somewhat less than useful. You could call it processor inches if you want to, and the usefulness stays the same. As long as you keep in mind the limitations of the measurement technique, it really doesn't matter just what units you prefer to attach to the number. Mike Hammock -- From: Les Koehler vmr...@tampabay.rr.com Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 5:05 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC Actually, it is *most* useful to the individual user! I've used it over the years to compare different pc systems and new releases of Rexx on VM and ooRexx on the pc. Before I retired from IBM, I used it regularly to give me an idea of how the customer would perceive a change to a Rexx application, since I would have to promote the application from Dev - Test - 3 production systems. Once the compiler was released, the differences between hardware pretty much became a moot point. On the VM system I have access to, I get from 6800 to 26000 REXXCPS because VM is emulated under Unix. So not all the numbers are large! Obviously that system wouldn't be appropriate for a large, interpreted Rexx application. In fact, it takes it 10 seconds to run REXXCPS. As someone pointed out on the RexxLA list, the real value of REXXCPS is that it has been there for years (since 1989), letting us see the progress that hardware and software have made over time. Mike Cowlishaw, inventor of Rexx and retired IBM Fellow, developed REXXCPS after analyzing thousands of lines of Trace output from IBM volunteers all over the world, so the algorithms are representative of production code of the time. Les Mike Hammock wrote: 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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Well, I just tried it on our z9 BC E01: 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): 0.00014319 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.91546694 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0091546694 seconds Performance: 109234 REXX clauses per second Ready; It would be fun to try on an uncapped z196 (not that I'm ever likely to see one of those). Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: June 10, 2011 06:18 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: REXXCPS EXEC 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 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
z196: Performance: 2714887 REXX clauses per second z10:Performance: 1732967 REXX clauses per second Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of peter.w...@ttc.ca Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 7:02 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] REXXCPS EXEC Well, I just tried it on our z9 BC E01: 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): 0.00014319 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.91546694 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0091546694 seconds Performance: 109234 REXX clauses per second Ready; It would be fun to try on an uncapped z196 (not that I'm ever likely to see one of those). Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: June 10, 2011 06:18 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: REXXCPS EXEC 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 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 10:25 EDT, Mike Hammock m...@hammocktree.us wrote: 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. I.e. It's just another instance of bogomips. Treat it the same way. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 mobile; 607.321.7556 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Lightly loaded, uncapped 1-engine z800: Performance: 174831 REXX clauses per second/1800 = 97 bogomips (fairly accurate) Lightly loaded, capped3-engine z10: Performance: 1700261 REXX clauses per second/1800 = 944 bogomips (dunno) Mike Walter Aon Corporation The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Les Koehler vmr...@tampabay.rr.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 06/10/2011 05:18 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject REXXCPS EXEC 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 The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 01:47 EDT, Mike Hammock m...@hammocktree.us wrote: 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? (yawn) (scratch) (scratch) I vote for Beaningless. It even pulls in: - Useless accounting (bean counters) - Smacking someone on the head (beaning them) (burp) -- Chuckie (snore)
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
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): 0.1351 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): 0.0467 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: 0.70788 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
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Chuckie, Chuckie, Chuckie, Smacking someone on the (back) of the head is not beaning them. The correct and more proper term is - Whisterpoot !!! Raymond E. Noal EMC² where information lives Phone: (508) 249-4076 Ext: 44076 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 2:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 01:47 EDT, Mike Hammock m...@hammocktree.us wrote: 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? (yawn) (scratch) (scratch) I vote for Beaningless. It even pulls in: - Useless accounting (bean counters) - Smacking someone on the head (beaning them) (burp) -- Chuckie (snore)
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On 6/10/2011 at 01:46 PM, Mike Hammock m...@hammocktree.us wrote: Let's see, what word can we find that starts with B that means Meaningless? Bogus? Bogo? Mark Post
