David Crayford says...
> ...It would be fantastic to have bash as the default shell for z/OS but that
> ain't gonna happen anytime soon :)
FWIW: Here's how I tend to work on z/OS.
* I leave my default login shell (in the OMVS segment) as /bin/sh.
* I have my .profile/.bash_profile/.bashrc files
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:13:36 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Could there be legal issues? Does the UNIX® certification process allow the
>default shell to be anything but Bourne?
>
POSIX requires in some cases that it not be Bourne. POSIX shell requires
tilde expansion, absent in Bourne shell.
P
Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 12:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COW for fork() is disappearing in z/OS 2.4
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:43:12 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote:
>
>> ... I'm astonished and disma
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:43:12 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote:
>
>> ... I'm astonished and dismayed to
>> think that fork() is realized (sometimes) by sending imaginary cards
>> through an imaginary card reader.
>...
>Unix is sending everything through an imaginary teletypewriter, is there
>a difference
: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COW for fork() is disappearing in z/OS 2.4
On 2019-08-28 7:37 PM, Jerry Callen wrote:
> Kirk Wolf wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, bash is pretty complicated software, and updating it to do
>> this is not at all e
On 2019-08-28 7:37 PM, Jerry Callen wrote:
Kirk Wolf wrote:
Unfortunately, bash is pretty complicated software, and updating it to do
this is not at all easy because of the difference in semantics between
fork()/exec() and spawn().
Amen, brethren! :-)
Interestingly, it looks like there is exa
Kirk Wolf wrote:
> Unfortunately, bash is pretty complicated software, and updating it to do
> this is not at all easy because of the difference in semantics between
> fork()/exec() and spawn().
Amen, brethren! :-)
Interestingly, it looks like there is exactly ONE call to fork() in the bash
sou
On 28/08/2019 11:52 am, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I wonder whether nowadays more address spaces are created for batch
job steps or for fork()? Of course, it's environment-sensitive. Which
path should be optimized? Whenever I see the message
BPXAS ON INTRDR
it appears the batch path is optimiz
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:35:00 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote:
>>
>Thanks. The Derived CPU is calculated as per the description towards the
>bottom of the page here:
>
>https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.ieag200/rec30.htm
>...
>I wonder whether the CPU time f
On 27/08/2019 10:54 pm, David Crayford wrote:
On 2019-08-27 8:19 PM, David Crayford wrote:
Great write-up. Bash doesn't use local spawn so it always runs
sub-processes in child address spaces. I have reported this so Rocket
are aware
and have opened a ticket. I'm not sure if it will be addres
On a related subject: it would be fantastic IMO to patch bash for z/OS so
that it used local spawn and followed _BPX_SHAREAS rules. It would
perform better and also allow you to use DD's in batch shell scripts like
you can with the z/OS UNIX shell.
Unfortunately, bash is pretty complicated sof
On 2019-08-27 8:19 PM, David Crayford wrote:
On 2019-08-27 8:13 PM, Andrew Rowley wrote:
FWIW - debugging performance of forked Unix process startup/overhead
is a
mess - we had one customer who was seeing terrible performance when
fork/execing tiny little shell processes that did practically
On 2019-08-27 8:13 PM, Andrew Rowley wrote:
FWIW - debugging performance of forked Unix process startup/overhead
is a
mess - we had one customer who was seeing terrible performance when
fork/execing tiny little shell processes that did practically
nothing. It
was only happening on one of the
On 24/08/2019 1:41 am, Kirk Wolf wrote:
FWIW - debugging performance of forked Unix process startup/overhead is a
mess - we had one customer who was seeing terrible performance when
fork/execing tiny little shell processes that did practically nothing. It
was only happening on one of their LPAR
on behalf of
Jerry Callen
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COW for fork() is disappearing in z/OS 2.4
> The Percent29 at the end breaks the URL. Is your e-mail software doing that
> automatically?
I created the post directly from the listserv
I am told that the reasons were:
(1) It consumed a lot of ESQA for the RSM control
blocks that manage the shared pages. (However, that is
no longer an issue because those control blocks were
moved to the PFT data space later in z/OS 2.4).
(2) The performance was no better than
> The Percent29 at the end breaks the URL. Is your e-mail software doing that
> automatically?
I created the post directly from the listserv's web interface - no email
software involved. I *did* have a closing paren at the end of the URL, since I
was in the middle of a parenthesized phrase; it
One would certainly hope that "copying" an address space for purposes of
fork() would not require paging it all in. That would be horrible, and I
seriously doubt that it works that way.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:26 PM Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:41:55 -0500, Kirk Wolf wrote:
>I agree!
>
>FWIW - debugging performance of forked Unix process startup/overhead is a
>mess - we had one customer who was seeing terrible performance when
>fork/execing tiny little shell processes that did practically nothing. It
>was only h
I agree!
FWIW - debugging performance of forked Unix process startup/overhead is a
mess - we had one customer who was seeing terrible performance when
fork/execing tiny little shell processes that did practically nothing. It
was only happening on one of their LPARs. The IBM Support center was
The Percent29 at the end breaks the URL. Is your e-mail software doing that
automatically?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jerry Callen
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 9:24 AM
To
21 matches
Mail list logo
