IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / IFS?
Post #123,705
by broomberg
11/2/03 2:08:35 PM
Reply
New IFS?
Would this be the term for a processors on the mainframe that are supposed to be strictly used for non-MF processing which in turn means they can run Linux or AIX but not MVS/OS-390? Licensing issue on my box. Or is this more of a generic term, since I saw you mention 14 free processors, and MFs that large are very rare. And with that many processors free, rarer.

In later posts you mention more of a distributed setup, but that is for later. So, hopefully most of my post will apply to that and be of some assistance.

Have you (or your Perl programmer) read "Data Munging in Perl"?
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930110006/qid=1067799999/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-5113305-5796718?v=glance&n=507846|http://www.amazon.co...v=glance&n=507846]
If not, go get it. It validated most of what I thought I knew, giving an ego boost, and taught me a bunch that I didn't, paying for itselt with the 1st 3 lines of code I used from it.
Post #123,728
by slugbug
11/2/03 6:05:46 PM
Reply
New Re: IFS?
IFS is the integrated file system on IBM's midrange platforms. It can integrate with Unix/Linux, Netware, and Windows among other things. One can also create user defined file systems, if needed. These servers also have a POSIX environment and an AIX runtime. In addition, one can set up logical partitions (LPARs) to run multiple OSes concurrently (e.g. Linux, Windows, and soon Unix).

This particular app currently has available 14 processors (non-distributed app). However, a portion of those processors will be shifting to another LPAR shortly to handle some other processing. Using the multi-instance approach with smaller files (which is how the data arrives anyway) seems to work well with the current number of processors (hardly taxing the machine at all). I'll have to measure the before/after processor shift performance and tweak as needed.

I have not yet read Data Munging in Perl, but will grab a copy.

Thanks,
Slugbug
     multithreaded Perl? - (slugbug) - (36) - Oct. 29, 2003, 09:51:00 AM EST
         What the?? - (deSitter) - (14) - Oct. 29, 2003, 10:12:22 AM EST
             multi-instance... - (slugbug) - (8) - Oct. 29, 2003, 10:34:11 AM EST
                 If this is a Unixy system, definitely go with fork() - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 29, 2003, 10:43:47 AM EST
                     Yes... - (slugbug) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:33:16 AM EST
                 Re: multi-instance... - (deSitter) - (5) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:00:52 AM EST
                     Er... - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:07:31 AM EST
                         DAMMIT! I WANT TOYS! -NT - (deSitter) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:14:20 AM EST
                     toys, toys, toys... - (slugbug) - (2) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:20:40 AM EST
                         Re: toys, toys, toys... - (deSitter) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:25:50 AM EST
                         Re: toys, toys, toys... (new thread) - (admin) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:34:11 AM EST
             Re: What the?? - (jb4) - (4) - Oct. 29, 2003, 01:59:53 PM EST
                 That's 4GB of angle brackets alone! -NT - (deSitter) - (2) - Oct. 29, 2003, 02:06:11 PM EST
                     Don't laugh... - (admin) - Oct. 29, 2003, 02:34:36 PM EST
                     Yes, the developers of LISP would be proud... -NT - (jb4) - Oct. 29, 2003, 05:11:53 PM EST
                 nope.... - (slugbug) - Oct. 29, 2003, 02:38:09 PM EST
         Possible, but I wouldn't - (ben_tilly) - (15) - Oct. 29, 2003, 10:36:24 AM EST
             Ben, thank you.... - (slugbug) - (14) - Oct. 29, 2003, 11:22:48 AM EST
                 No problem - (ben_tilly) - (13) - Oct. 29, 2003, 02:27:10 PM EST
                     Re: No problem - (deSitter) - (2) - Oct. 29, 2003, 02:42:45 PM EST
                         The more you can do, the more they ask you to do - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 29, 2003, 05:13:13 PM EST
                             Absolutely. - (admin) - Oct. 29, 2003, 05:19:55 PM EST
                     this is an... - (slugbug) - Oct. 29, 2003, 02:43:11 PM EST
                     So, Perl assumes POSIX compliance in the OS, eh? - (jb4) - (6) - Oct. 29, 2003, 05:13:48 PM EST
                         No - (ben_tilly) - (5) - Oct. 29, 2003, 05:53:22 PM EST
                             Interesting, but looks like a bit of a kluge - (jb4) - (4) - Oct. 30, 2003, 02:06:32 PM EST
                                 It is a kludge - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Oct. 30, 2003, 02:48:22 PM EST
                                     Re: It is a kludge - (deSitter) - (2) - Oct. 30, 2003, 02:50:47 PM EST
                                         One of those things was Perl ;-) -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 30, 2003, 04:22:25 PM EST
                                             Don't I know! - (deSitter) - Oct. 30, 2003, 04:36:04 PM EST
                     Query: I've played a (small) amount with the multithreading - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Oct. 30, 2003, 02:06:03 PM EST
                         That scheduler optimization is pretty recent IIRC -NT - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 30, 2003, 02:39:39 PM EST
         More info please - (broomberg) - (4) - Oct. 30, 2003, 06:24:47 PM EST
             Geez. 1 day late and nothin! -NT - (broomberg) - Nov. 1, 2003, 09:06:49 AM EST
             1 day late and.... - (slugbug) - (2) - Nov. 2, 2003, 11:25:47 AM EST
                 IFS? - (broomberg) - (1) - Nov. 2, 2003, 02:08:35 PM EST
                     Re: IFS? - (slugbug) - Nov. 2, 2003, 06:05:46 PM EST

We're... the Three Amigos!
105 ms