Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
displacements , immediate s etc etc
What about the control program ?
Just got some REXX IRXINIT dumps, and seems to me the code is not very
modern.
<snip>
If you look at the past several releases' worth of LSPRs, you will see
that we *do* work on the performance of the BCP and other z/OS
components. But we prioritize what we do to maximize the overall system
performance return you (and we) get for our efforts. There doesn't seem
to be much value in "modernization" for its own sake, or in expending
effort on code paths that are relatively rarely traveled and that work
fine today. (We do have to test this stuff too, after all.) Also, when
optimization requires data area restructuring, particularly for older
data areas, it can be disruptive in terms of compatibility.
Other than what you can see in the LSPR and in capacity planning tools,
this is an "invisible" effort when we do it right, but there can be real
benefits. If you can move down the n-way curve as a result of
improvements we make, for example, you can gain capacity both from the
performance improvements themselves and from a reduction of n-way overheads.
This is not to say that you will not have any "hot spots" on your
systems in z/OS code which, if optimized, could help one or more of your
particular workloads, just that they haven't risen to a level where
we've seen them as important enough at an overall system level to work
on them. But "backwater" code that lives far away from any
frequently-traveled mainstream code path is an unlikely optimization target.
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
