Robert Rosenberg writes
Isn't a WTL just a WTO ROUTECDE=11 under the covers? If so, why would it
function
differently (unless the original WTO was not being explicitly being
routed to 11?).
a comment that is gratuitous in the light of my original language,
I have found that using WTLs ins
At 14:19 + on 04/14/2006, john gilmore wrote about Re: Certain
WTOs are slow to externalize:
I have found that using WTLs instead of WTOs in these circumstances
helps much more than there would seem to be any reason to believe
that it should.
Isn't a WTL just a WTO ROUTECDE=11 unde
Jim, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. Thanks for the
explanation. Me thinks I have some WTO SYNCH=YES code to remove...
Insofar as the non SYNCH=YES situation, I'm satisfied attributing that
behavior to the explanation from Sam, in that JES has not externalized the
WTO as fast as I wo
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 04/14/2006
08:51:30 AM:
> Here's an interesting phenomenon that perhaps some of you have observed,
or
> maybe not. I've observed it when running in SRB mode and specifying
> LINKAGE=BRANCH when using WTOs for messaging. Perhaps someone can
explain
> wha
In a message dated 4/14/2006 1:32:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>If your z/OS system is running under a Hypervisor (LPAR
>or VM) using shared CPs, then there may also be logical
>processor dispatching effects (and these could be in
>the multi-millisecond range i
> SRBs are interesting creatures. I had one recently that would
takeanywhere
> from 50 microseconds to 50 MILLISECONDS to be SCHEDULEd inside disabled
> code. I have a hard time understanding why it takes so long to put
> an SRB on a
> queue.
SCHEDULE and IEAMSCHD generally do not put t
In a recent note, john gilmore said:
> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:19:23 +
>
> When I do I also use a pair of CONTROL statements. the first to increase the
> number of log buffers (I double them) and the second to restore the status
> quo ante.
>
If two such processes could execute co
I have found that using WTLs instead of WTOs in these circumstances helps
much more than there would seem to be any reason to believe that it should.
When I do I also use a pair of CONTROL statements. the first to increase the
number of log buffers (I double them) and the second to restore the
In a message dated 4/14/2006 7:56:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>So my question is, why does it take so long for the WTO to externalize?
The only reason I can think of why a WTO would not show up somewhere almost
instantly is if there is an extreme WTO buffer sh
On
Behalf Of Todd Burch
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Certain WTOs are slow to externalize
Here's an interesting phenomenon that perhaps some of you have observed,
or maybe not. I've observed it when running in SRB mode and specifying
LINKAGE=BR
Here's an interesting phenomenon that perhaps some of you have observed, or
maybe not. I've observed it when running in SRB mode and specifying
LINKAGE=BRANCH when using WTOs for messaging. Perhaps someone can explain
what is going on here.
For situtation #1, my app is running in SRB mode, it ph
11 matches
Mail list logo
