To explain, I'm writing new PC code. I want the equivalent of EDMK in (something like) snprintf() format strings to print numbers with optional floating currency symbol and spaces/commas between thousands. (not forgetting n,nn,nn,nnn.nn style used in at least one country).
As far as I can see, snprintf() format strings can't handle it, but PL/I and even assembly (EDMK) make this easy. Is there a common standard I should look at, please? e.g. format 1234.56 with "$999,999,990.00" leads to " $1,234.56". I'm not going to be choosy about input data type--it's the presentation that matters and I'd rather not reinvent the wheel. Any suggestions, please? Roops On Sat, 4 Mar 2023, 18:39 Mike Schwab, <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020 > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports. > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors. > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when > interrupt says there is work. > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload). > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU. > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:35 PM Laurence Chiu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The situation. > > > > We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where > we > > run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production. > > > > For critical business reasons an online application on our production > LPAR > > needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex. But > our > > outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons > because > > there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by > other > > CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones > > (not ours). > > > > Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a > > production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a > > test one first of course. > > > > I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be > > used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised > > this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host A > > and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually > > communicate with the CF on A. > > > > Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM > > dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of > about > > 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the > > two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the > only > > structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF > > structures and core systems. > > > > Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure > > transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time > we > > would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF > > could be built using a CP. To this suggestion I received the following > > (anti) advice > > - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on > > the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with > Dynamic > > Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going > to > > be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major > cost. > > - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this > > document > > > > https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q > > the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the > > incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS > and > > CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time. But this can be > > managed. > > > > - that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there > are > > no spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I > > have read from IBM docs. > > > > Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an > ICF > > engine (or share one) > > > > Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no > > connections between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you > do > > not need to dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using > > Infiniband sub channels or sharing the same physical link with more than > > one Sysplex. Then the issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I > can > > ask for two CF's to be defined on host A, one for production and one for > > test and DCFC ensures that that production CF is not impacted by the > > development one. > > > > A lot to digest here but I really want to have some authoritative data in > > order to refute most of the comments being our outsourcer. > > > > Thanks > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > -- > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA > Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
