In article <[log in to unmask]>,         "Jonathon Simon"
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
|> What's the latest on REXX compilation of LISTSERV.  Is it worth it?
|> Does it have any significant impact on performance.  We are looking
|> for anything that can help drop our CPU level during prime time.
|>
|> Thanks in advance.
 
I have compiled it with both IBM REXX and PROREXX (from Systems Center). We
decided not to purchase either of these packages, but here are some numbers
from LISTSERV 1.6e(?) compiled with the IBM REXX compiler on a 4381-13 with
3380 DASD under SP 5:
 
SHOW BITEARN command
                               Compiled        Regular
CPU sec.                           .15            .62
Paging                              61             16
WS (observed maximum IND USER)     225            174
 
NODESGEN command
 
CPU                              39.37         113.62
Paging                             127             82
WS                                 377            326
 
DIST2 job (4 local, 1 remote recipient)
 
CPU                                .40           1.61
Paging                              59              7
WS                                 269            216
 
The PROREXX compiler was much faster at compiling the programs, but the CPU
times were slightly higher for PROREXX (approximately 50% of the uncompiled
times) and the working set requirements (both idle and busy) were higher. I
helped Systems Center fix several bugs in the compiler, too (mostly buffer
overflow situations). The IBM compiler was SLOW, but I guess you only have
to do it once.
 
Though we could, of course, use any extra CPU, our machine's primary
performance problems come from paging/real storage demands. So, I would
rather use twice as much CPU and half the memory.
 
Eric is gradually switching LISTSERV functions to compiled HLL modules, so
the need for compiling the REXX functions is reduced with every release.
 
--Shane