On Feb 19, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
The described record arrival rate averages at just under 58 records
per second. Somehow I don't think XBM was designed with that high
of transaction arrival rate in mind, processing each record as a
separate transaction. I would think that a high-speed transaction
processing environment (CICS, IMS) would do better than XBM,
although those would probably still involve more overhead than a
specialized transaction-processing STC optimized just for your own
peculiar transactions (but I agree a separate specialized STC would
be more of a maintenance headache).
There is also an intermediate approach where you collect records by
some means and then periodically fire off a process or transaction
to process records collected since the last time the process was run.
Another consideration: If the current batch processing is done at a
time of lower system system load and involves significant work per
record, moving this processing into peak processing times could
have significant impact on your peak MSU requirement and a
significant impact on your costs. I suspect your record arrival
rate is not a constant throughout the day but also has its peaks.
If those peak record arrival rates actually correspond to current
periods of peak system load, then the impact on the peak system MSU
requirements of moving this load would be even greater than one
would expect from the average record rate alone.
In other words, if there is a perceived business need to process
the records in a more timely manner, be sure those footing the bill
are aware it may not be a "free lunch".
JC Ewing
Joel:
I think a LOT depends on how much processing is needed for each
"transaction". If it is just syntax checking and minimal editing then
maybe XBM is a possibility.
Although your scenario is valid as well. It is hard to give out much
information without a lot more detail.
We did XBM jobs and the number varied all over the place. Typically
each "job" took about 5 minutes of CPU time (168 slow I know) it was
both cpu and IO intensive (essentially Assembler H compiles and with
Major macros).
I did not want to suggest that XBM is a final answer in any case. It
was used by us in a highly unusual manner.
I hope the original questioner comes back with a little bit more
information.
CICS or IMS is (like you suggested) viable alternative but it is
complicated (bother suggestions) and hard to say this way or the
otherway.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
