Look at the Ratio column for "normalized" numbers. ESPIE beats everything. That's the point. If (a.) all you need to trap is program checks; and (b.) you expect a bunch of them -- use ESPIE.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:10 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
