I made the following observation:
1. WRITE. I put some data to tape (3592J). The average transfer speed was
approx. 70MB/s. SDSF shows very high SIO rate for the job, approx. 2500.
Data generated by IEBDG, blocksize=32720, RECFM=FB, LRECL=80
2. READ. I read *the same* data, which I previously wr
In a message dated 2/5/2007 11:47:22 A.M. Central Standard Time, R.Skorupka
@ BREMULTIBANK.COM.PL writes:
>I think, ICEGENER reads the data in much larger chunks, so the number of
I/O is lower, but the speeds is even greater.
Am I right ?
Don't know if you are right that ICEGENER reads in
n response to this information.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: SIO in SDSF vs read/write speed
I made the following observation:
1. WRITE. I put so
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: SIO in SDSF vs read/write speed
I made the following observation:
1. WRITE. I put some data to tape (3592J). The
Steve Thompson has now raised two of the three issues that need to be
addressed if this thread is to get serious. What are the apparently
implicit BUFSIZE=, BUFNO= and NCP= values being used?
John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA
_
t; To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: SIO in SDSF vs read/write speed
>
> I made the following observation:
> 1. WRITE. I put some data to tape (3592J). The average transfer speed was
> approx. 70MB/s. SDSF shows very high SIO rate for the job, approx. 2500.
> Data generated by IEBDG, bl
I made a mistake. I missed *one day*. It wasn't 16 hours, but 40 hours.
So, write speed is 71 MB/s, and read speed is 41 MB/s.
So, read is *slower* - why ?
In both cases I used default values for buffers. AFAIK the defaults are quite
similar to optimal.
The SIO values observed in SDSF remains the
7 matches
Mail list logo
