Pardon my bringing back an old thread, but -

I wanted to see how much better is the COMPRESS option over the HWCOMPRESS
in regards to CPU time and was pretty surprised when my results suggested
that HWCOMPRESS is persistently more efficient (both CPU and channel
utilization -wise) than COMPRESS:

DFDSS DUMP with OPT(4) of a VSAM basic format to disk (basic format):

STEPNAME PROCSTEP    RC   EXCP   CONN    TCB    SRB  CLOCK
DUMP-HWCOMPRESS      00  14514  93575    .25    .07    2.3   output was 958
cyls.
DUMP-COMPRESS        00  14819  92326    .53    .07    2.5   output was 978
cyls.
DUMP-NOCOMP          00  15283   103K    .13    .08    2.4   output was
1,017 cyls.


DFDSS DUMP with OPT(4) of a PS basic format to disk (basic format):

STEPNAME PROCSTEP    RC   EXCP   CONN    TCB    SRB  CLOCK   
DUMP-HWCOMPRESS      00  13317   154K    .44    .19    6.2  output was 877
cyls.
DUMP-COMPRESS        00  14692   157K    .68    .19    5.1  output was 969
cyls.
DUMP-NOCOMP          00  35827   238K    .14    .21    7.9  output was 2,363
cyls. 


Running on a 2098-I04. DFSMSDSS V1R09.0. 


So, how come I get different results than the original poster?  
The test data was database-type data sets..

Best Regards,
Yifat

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Andrew N Wilt
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hardware-assisted compression: not CPU-efficient?

Ron,
        Thank you for the good response. It is true that the DFSMSdss
COMPRESS keyword and HWCOMPRESS keyword do not perform the same types of
compression. Like Ron said, the COMPRESS keyword is using a Huffman encoding
technique, and works amazing for repeated bytes (just the types of things
you see on system volumes). The HWCOMPRESS keyword utilizes a dictionary
based method, and works well, supposedly, on customer type data.
The CPU utilization of the HWCOMPRESS (dictionary based) is indeed larger
due to what it is doing. So you should choose the type of compression that
suits your CPU utilization needs and data type.
        It was mentioned elsewhere in this thread about using the Tape
Hardware compaction. If you have it available, that's what I would go for.
The main intent of the HWCOMPRESS keyword was to provide the dictionary
based compression for the cases where you were using the software
encryption, and thus couldn't utilize the compaction of the tape device.

Thanks,

 Andrew Wilt
 IBM DFSMSdss Architecture/Development
 Tucson, Arizona

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Reply via email to