Re: IBM using more below the line storage.
- From: wdriscoll8@xxxxxxxxxxx (Wayne Driscoll)
- Date: 11 Jul 2008 09:44:26 -0700
Tom,
No offense to you or John, but given that John Eells and Peter Relson, both
who have intimate knowledge of z/OS system internals have stated that the
PLPA requirements for IBM products have dropped from OS/390 2.10 and z/OS
1.8, I would guess that the CICS level 2 person was making something between
a "best guess" and a "pass the buck" (worst case, I hope not) type of
response. Remember that all IBM level 2 people are the same, especially in
different areas (CICS vs z/OS vs DB2 etc). In addition, it could be that
the OS/390 2.10 system had been tightly tuned to remove unnecessary modules
and/or libraries from the LPA list, while in the 1.8 system the default long
LPA list was in place (credit for this point goes to John Eells). Another
thing to keep in mind is that if the OS/390 system had the CSA/SQA settings
coupled closely to the size of the LPA, a small increase in the CSA size
could shrink the private region by 1 meg (due to segment rounding issues).
What the OP needs to do is to compare the memory maps between the 2 systems.
(This also has been mentioned a large number of times).
Wayne Driscoll
Product Developer
NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Pinnacle
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 7:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IBM using more below the line storage.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mattson" <John_Mattson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: IBM using more below the line storage.
IBM appears to be expanding use of storage below the 16M line,
rather than converting their own code to 31-bit addressability. Here is
the reply I received when I ETR asked CICS why I could no longer get a
certain DSALIM value in TS22 after going to zos 1.08.
"There is Common Storage shared by all address spaces, and not
considered
part of the private storage available for address space (task) use.
In OS/390 2.10 the amount of Common Storage needed by the system was
smaller than is required by z/os 1.8, which has much more function.
When Common Storage increases, the amount of private storage decreases.
My guess, based on my years of experience is that in your 2.10 system
the amount of private storage available was 10M or possibly 11M. It
must be on a meg boundry. In z/os 1.8 the amount of storage available
for CICS , or any other address space has shrunk to 9M based on the
increase in Common Storage."
For all those giving John grief about this, please reread the above. IBM
LEVEL 2 is the one telling him that z/OS V1R8 uses more Common Storage!! He
didn't make it up on his own. Instead of yelling at John, yell at the IBM
Level 2 guy who wrote this response. Other posters have correctly stated to
look at things like LPA, etc. But going by what the ETR says, John is
correct to be piqued about the fact that this Level 2 dude thinks it's OK
that z/OS V1R8 uses more Common below the line than OS/390 V2R10. I agree
with John, that answer is UNACCEPTABLE.
There, I feel better.
Regards,
Tom Conley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
.
- References:
- IBM using more below the line storage.
- From: John Mattson
- Re: IBM using more below the line storage.
- From: Pinnacle
- IBM using more below the line storage.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can STGINDEX have secondary allocations?
- Next by Date: Preventing LOGREC Recording in a Recovery Routine
- Previous by thread: Re: IBM using more below the line storage.
- Next by thread: Re: IBM using more below the line storage.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
