Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-27 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks, that sounds like the most likely explanation for an SRB being delayed. I wonder who would be doing a STATUS STOP,SRB in a CICS region? Might that be the hypervisor or WLM? Thanks again, Dave -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-27 Thread Edward Jaffe
Dave Stedman wrote: I don't know whether ASCB in ASCBDSP1 had marked the address space as non-dispatchable. It was a CICS region. What may cause this bit to be set on? STATUS STOP,SRB -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 9

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-27 Thread Dave Stedman
I don't know whether ASCB in ASCBDSP1 had marked the address space as non-dispatchable. It was a CICS region. What may cause this bit to be set on? Thanks, Dave -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruct

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>weights of the other LPARs have made any difference? Yes. The dispatching of each LPAR is not really any different than the dispatching of a task. If your LPAR was/is low on weight, and there is/was CPU contention, it may matter. When in doubt. PANIC!! -

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
In a message dated 10/26/2006 3:40:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Can anybody explain why occasionally IEAMSCHD takes several seconds to >schedule an SRB? Normally this takes microseconds but in one case I am >looking at it took 61.4 secs!!! >The environment w

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Edward Jaffe
Dave Stedman wrote: IEAMSCHD returned to its caller within a few microsecs, but then the SRB did not start for 61 secs! Any chance ASCB was set in the target address space? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Dave Stedman
I don't have the weights of the other LPARS. Since this LPAR was very active during the 61 sec wait with both srb and tcb activity, would the weights of the other LPARs have made any difference? Thanks, Dave -- For IBM-MAIN sub

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Dave Stedman
IEAMSCHD returned to its caller within a few microsecs, but then the SRB did not start for 61 secs! Thanks, Dave -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Edward Jaffe
Dave Stedman wrote: Can anybody explain why occasionally IEAMSCHD takes several seconds to schedule an SRB? Normally this takes microseconds but in one case I am looking at it took 61.4 secs!!! Are you saying the IEAMSCHD service did not return to its caller right away? Or that the SRB rou

Re: IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>The environment was an LPAR with 13 shared engines and zero dedicated engines. What are the other LPAR's? Weights? Also, if you have shared engines you cannot have dedicated ones in the same LPAR. When in doubt. PANIC!! ---

IEAMSCHD SRB Excessive delay

2006-10-26 Thread Dave Stedman
Hi all, Can anybody explain why occasionally IEAMSCHD takes several seconds to schedule an SRB? Normally this takes microseconds but in one case I am looking at it took 61.4 secs!!! The environment was an LPAR with 13 shared engines and zero dedicated engines. The IEAMSCHD was in a DIE and th