Re:Re: R14.1 vs. R16 ADS performance

Discussion created by ca.portal.admin on Mar 2, 2006
Kay -

We have seen a notable increase in 14.0 VS. 16.0..
For us, it is especially noticeable in local mode batch retrieval.

In fact, we have a test sample program we are using that is almost
completely database work (no other real business logic code).
We've seen large increases with this test program.
We've seen large, (but not as large as the sample program) increases
real-world batch testing.

We are working with C.A., who has been very earnest in working on a
performance APAR for us.
It's still work-in-progress as we are going through an iterative process
re-coding and re-testing.
We are seeing improvements as a result, but not quite where we want to
just yet.
So, you may not see this published for another month or two.
The APAR, in it's current form, is enormous (under 2000 lines of VERS

IDMSDBMS was practiacally split into two because it is so big now.
The two major CSECTS are IDMSDBMS and IDMSDBM2.
It appears there is a significant amount of debugging code in both of
that is really only useful in certain specific circumstances.
C.A. is taking the stance that we are executing a lot of instructions
something that is of little value most of the time.
They can always Option-APAR this code right back in if it's needed for
troubleshooting a problem.

I know some of you out there said you saw no increase going to R16.
I wish I could have said the same thing.
However, after almost 60 different tests so far since January, there is
denying the evidence.
It's ""right-in-your-face"".

We spent the first several days ruling out things that might have been
set-up incorrectly or missed during the install.
I'm pretty sure we have been testing on a level playing field now.

We, too, are kind-of stuck in Limbo.
Based on extrapolations, we wouldn't finish our nightly batch by
So, we are staying put for the time being.

Jon Gocher.

----- Original Message -----
From: ""Rozeboom, Kay [DAS]"" <KAY.ROZEBOOM@IOWA.GOV>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: R14.1 vs. R16 ADS performance

After upgrading our test CV's from R14.1 SP6 to R16 SP2, most dialogs
are using .01 additional second of CPU, according to PMAM report 01.
This may not sound like much, but it would have a significant impact in
production. We are trying to figure out if this is:

1) An artifact of the testing process. (We no longer have an R14.1
test CV, so cannot repeat the test at that release.)
2) Something done incorrectly during the upgrade.
3) An actual increase in CPU required for ADS in R16.

We have storage protection on at the system level, and off at the
program level for ADSOMAIN and ADSORUN1. This did not change with the
upgrade. (I checked.) We are not using the new HPSPO.

Has anyone else experienced an increase in ADS CPU use after upgrading
to R16?

Kay Rozeboom
State of Iowa
Information Technology Enterprise
Department of Administrative Services
Telephone: 515.281.6139 Fax: 515.281.6137
Email: Kay.Rozeboom@Iowa.Gov
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipients of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

IDMS Public Discussion Forum


Re: [IDMSVENDOR-L] Common Signon
"Timo, how do you get the application (ads, dc-cobol) to run on the
other cv? DBNODE is the way to make the DB run-unit run over there, but
will it invoke an application task and program to run on the other cv?

Lutz Petzold

This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender
reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you.

IDMS Public Discussion Forum


Re: R14.1 vs. R16 ADS performance
"Hi Chris -

We are OS/390 V2R10.9 running on a 9672 - R24 Processor.
I know this sounds a little ancient, but our mission is to get off the
We are slow in getting there, so there is some renewed interest now in
upgrading and being on on supported software.

We are trying to move from R14 - 9810 (plus many, many APARS) to R16 - SP3.

The COBOL is COBOL for MVS and VM - Release1.2
COBOL isn't a factor in the sample program we've been using.

The sample program is Assembler, because I didn't want to have answer a lot
of grueling questions about LE differences.
In fact, the Assembler program is a modified version of the sample provided
in the Assembler DML reference manual.
One of the modifications was a ""Loop Limit"" to say how many times we wanted
to area sweep the ORG-DEMO area.
The latest round of tests have this Loop limit set to 50,000.

The DEMO DB is the standard tiny DB, and the buffer I have is 495 pages.
So there is only I/O to load the areas once and then everything after that
are ""finds in the buffer"".
The BUFFERSTAT report shows this is the case.
That's another area I didn't want to have to answer a lot of questions on...
# of physical I/O's, type of DASD, tuning of I/O subsystem, etc.

To remove another variable, I used DD overrides so that both R14 and R16
tests would go against the same DEMO database.

Anyone who wants a copy of the sample program I am using is welcome to it.
Just drop me a line.
Those of you making the leap to R16 might want to run it to see what
differences you are getting.
I feel alone here because, intitally, C.A. had said they have gotten no
other complaints and there was nothing significant that would cause such an
increase in CPU.

Both C.A. and I are testing with this same program, although the CPU
increases they are seeing aren't as dramatic as mine.
But, then again, they have been comparing R15 to R16 for most of their

I think those of you that saw little or no increase are running programs
that do little database work relative to other CPU-crunching business code.
You probably have big-iron monster machines that are masking most
differences, too.

The sample program is all DB work.
So the differences really stand out.

Jon Gocher

----- Original Message -----
From: ""Chris Wood"" <Chris.Wood@GOV.AB.CA>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: R14.1 vs. R16 ADS performance


Can you tell the rest of us what OS and hardware, version of COBOL and
other tuning methods you may use for the test job and other jobs please?

Chris Wood
Alberta Department of Energy

I sent this message earlier but have not received the reply from the
Listserv yet so I don't believe that it was posted.