The data presented shows that FRR is a lot better than ESTAE(X). Perhaps you overlooked the number of iterations.
-- Tom Marchant On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:23:33 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: >Interesting numbers. > >But I looked at the current doc and it still appears to be problem state only. > >Also, do you numbers include setup or just program check handling? I figured >FRRs would be a lot better than ESTAE(X). > >On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 19:28:13 -0500 Jim Mulder <d10j...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >:> These are my results from a benchmark I did 4 years ago: >:> >:>Testcases which loop recovering/retrying from an >:>operation exception. >:>Using default system trace size - 1MB per CPU, with >:>20 CPUs, so 20MB of data to snap) >:>z13 machine >:> >:>Recovery Iterations CPU seconds Ratio >:>---------------- ---------- ----------- ----- >:>ESPIE x'200000' 3.53 1.0 >:>FRR x'200000' 45.66 12.9 >:>ESTAEX (no SNAPTRC) x' 20000' 98.95 28.0 >:>ESTAEX (SNAPTRC) x' 1000' 102.83 14,914.7 >:> >:> >:>Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp. >:>Poughkeepsie NY >:>(845) 435-4741 >:>D10JHM1@PLPSC (MVS) JMULDER@S390VM (VM) >:> >:>> From: "Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw" <lenni...@rsmpartners.com> >:>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >:>> Date: 04/02/2020 08:13 PM >:>> Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks) >:>> Sent by: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> >:>> >:>> I think the reason that handling interrupts in ESPIE is faster than >:>> ESTAE is simply that ESPIE sets an exit to the FLIH, whereas ESTAE >:>> sets an exit to the SLIH. >:>> >:>> Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw | Security Lead | RSM Partners Ltd >:>> Web: www.rsmpartners.com >:>> �Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.� >:>> >:>> -----Original Message----- >:>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On >:>> Behalf Of Charles Mills >:>> Sent: 02 April 2020 20:59 >:>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >:>> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd >:>sub-tasks) >:>> >:>> As Peter seems to imply, ESPIE interrupts are apparently noticeably >:>> lower overhead than ESTAE interrupts. If data or addressing >:>> exceptions were expected I definitely *would* use ESPIE. I would >:>> save ESTAE for unexpected (well, expected unexpected) conditions. My >:>> opinion: no benchmarks, no source code. >:>> >:>> Charles >:> >:> >:> >:>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >:>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >:>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >-- >Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> >http://www.dissensoftware.com > >Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel > > >Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, >you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. > >I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, >especially those from irresponsible companies. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
