Binyamin Dissen wrote:
What advantage do you see in an ESPIE over an ESTAE?
IIRC, there are quite a few conditions where it doesn't get control. And no
clean way to percolate.
Mostly - catching an error (bad memory reference) in an ESTAE exit...
- Dave Rivers -
--
riv...@dignus.com
I'd say that no one should use ESPIE unless they have a valid performance
reason to do so.
And no clean way to percolate.
As of z/OS 1.12 there is: you can set EPIEPERC
(E)STAI is the only recovery mechanism that comes to mind that applies to
other work unit(s).
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Tech
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
> On 2 Apr 2020, at 9:53 pm, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> I'd say that no one should use ESPIE unless they have a valid performance
> reason to do so.
>
>
> And no clean way to percolate.
>
> As of z/OS 1.12 there is: you can set EPIEPER
One obvious use is to detect conditions for which there is an active ON unit.
It's much easier with (E)SPIE.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
David Crayford
Sent: Thursday, Apri
Because Peter didn't write LE?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of David Crayford
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tas
Greetings,
Last month we announced that the next meeting of the GSE UK Security Working
Group, will take place on Thursday 11th June 2020, at the offices of RSM
Partners in Bromsgrove, UK. Due to the current situation with COVID-19, we have
taken the decision to convert the meeting to online on
On 2020-04-02 11:03, David Crayford wrote:
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
The ESPIE can be eliminated using TRAP=(ON,NOSPIE), and we have not seen
any
I had the same observation. Sending every condition through the same handler
was advantageous for me.
You would want to keep the SPIE if program checks were expected: perhaps a
report generator where you anticipated that users might declare fields to be
packed when they were not always valid.
I am posting this question to the group on behalf of a colleague who does
not have access to IBM-MAIN
He is attempting to copy a ZFS file from a NON-SMS managed volume to a
pre-allocated and formatted SMS managed FILE.
He has attempted to use the DFDSS COPY function, and, he does have Storage
You could setup a batch job:
- Allocate the new SMS zFS
- Mount the new SMS zFS
- Use PAX command to copy zFS
- Unmount new and old zFS
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Kenneth J. Kripke
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 2:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.ED
There is no need to preallocate and format the new ZFS target data set. Just
do a copy with the RENAMEU option. Below is an example. In this example SYS1
high level is not SMS managed. SYS2 high level is SMS managed in this example:
//S3 EXEC PGM=ADRDSSU
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
//SYSI
On 2020-04-02 14:14, Charles Mills wrote:
I had the same observation. Sending every condition through the same handler
was advantageous for me.
Same here.
You would want to keep the SPIE if program checks were expected: perhaps a
report generator where you anticipated that users might decl
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
On 4/2/2020 1:56 PM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
Good one Gord. I always wondered why LE did that. It makes_no_sense to me.
Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support Group
Chicago-Soft, Ltd
--
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. Encry
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:28:05 -0400 Mike Shaw wrote:
:>On 4/2/2020 1:56 PM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
:>
:>> An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
:>> transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
:>
:>Good one Gord. I always wondered why LE did that. It makes_no_sense to
Sometime back I asked for recommendations for a small USB3 switch such that
I would not keep moving my dongle from my laptop to my tower and back.
Will the one I bought from Amazon arrived and it is self-powered courtesy of
The 2 USB A-A cables that came with it.
Now I just push a button on the H
That insanity dates all the way back to the Fortran runtime in OS/360. It used
to make ABEND-AID output useless.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Mike Shaw
Sent: Thursday, April
Of course dispatching a SPIE exit from the Program SLIH is less overhead than
calling ABTERM schedule ABEND, processing the ABEND and dispatching an
(E)STA(E|I).
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion L
Having a SPIE exit doesn't require them to mangle the dump. They do that pour
le sport.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Gord Tomlin
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:56 PM
To: I
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
RecoveryIterations CPU seconds Ratio
I meant to also mention that ESPIE requires an SRB
dispatch and and 2 TCB dispatches for each iteration,
so there is uncaptured dispatcher time to consider
when comparing performance.
Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
Poughkeepsie NY
>
> These are my results
What's the timing on ARR?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Jim
Mulder
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "
ARR, ESTAE, and ESTAEX are all RTM2, so recovering from an event
and retrying are pretty much the same processing.
Establishing and deleting an ARR is considerably
faster than establishing and deleting an ESTAE or ESTAEX.
Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
Pou
Which one did you get?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
On 2020-04-03 1:56 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
On 2020-04-02 11:03, David Crayford wrote:
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
The ESPIE can be eliminated using T
26 matches
Mail list logo
