Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:50:15 -1000 Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler Lines: 58 Message-ID: <87pmvlijnc.fsf@localhost> References: <257298b0-715f-465d-94b0-a8b98a4bf8f9n@googlegroups.com> <987158719.646770905.339072.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <281782900.646856626.461544.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <6008b75f-7196-4734-bdda-0cb70d9a7d2dn@googlegroups.com> <723758665.646872522.971131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <465f11f2-5002-4e7e-a114-ea9ea3d30a4en@googlegroups.com> <76e599e0-0724-472c-b7e7-5b1a8b80789cn@googlegroups.com> <8969754f-bc7f-47b4-a55b-fc7e776a2945n@googlegroups.com> <176167b0-b42b-4cec-8275-54946a15ab22n@googlegroups.com> <33d3b4cc-9a0c-4f1e-9eaf-5ee53315b080n@googlegroups.com> <87h7h0ies0.fsf@localhost> <648b3c44-a86b-434d-91e5-3ce32796c5ean@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7e8fabe3c3a1bdd360c3e3004693ee90"; logging-data="32253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+AwHDnU7znce3hsGHVz21ezLaLZ+IMh+E=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:aXP/YkKu1D90qn9ZlgG12GOtO5w= sha1:ADqMfqvYrt8slBY65jEF1Mh9OwQ= Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:218388 undefined Hancock-4 writes: > It seemed to me in S/370 days demand for service exceeded computer > horsepower to provide it. Online processing was a resource hog in > both CPU, memory, and disk. > > We could handle five terminals on our S360-40 under MTCS. But 500 > terminals on our 158 was another story, basically it was too much. > We'd upgrade, but as soon as we upgraded we added another application. OS/360 systems had huge setup/teardown overhead ... including each file open/close was enormous overhead (I discuss in more detail in the FORTG->WATFOR in this thread). It was why CICS was so popular ... it tried to require all its resources at startup (including large blocks of storage where it ran its own storage allocation algorithms) ... including doing all file open at startup ... and then trying its best to make minimum use of OS/360 ... mostly excp for doing actual file i/o. mid-70s, I also started to pontificate that while systems were getting faster ... disk performance wasn't increasing as fast ... as well as there being huge amount of bloat. In the early 80s, I was writing that relative system disk performance had declined by an order of magnitude from early 360 days to the early 80s (i.e. disks got 3-5 faster while rest of system got 40-50 times faster). Disk executives took exception and assigned the division performance group to refute my claims ... they came back after a few weeks and basically said I had slightly understated the problem. They then respun the analysis for a (IBM user group) SHARE presentation on how to configure disks to improve system throughput.... 16Aug1984, Share 63, B874. old posts with some intro/summarry http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#18 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#3 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#68 I had compared a 360/67 with 768kbytes memory, 2314 disks and 2301 paging device ... to 3081 with 32mbytes, 3380 disks and 2305 paging devices ... even thot processor and memory increased 30-50 times, the number of users only increased four times (which was about the change in number of random access from 2314 to 3380), if disks had kept with up the rest of the system, number of users should have increased by factor of 30-50 times ... instead of only four times. trivia: previous post in thread mentions univ. hires me fulltime. along the way Univ. library got ONR (office naval research) grant to do online catalog ... some of the money went to getting IBM 2321 datacell. Effort was also selected to be betatest site for the original CICS product ... which was added to my tasks. Took awhile but shot a problem where CICS didn't document it had hardcoded some BDAM file options and it turned out the library had created BDAM files with different options ... and CICS would fail on startup not able to open the files. lots of CICS history, gone 404 but lives on at wayback machine http://web.archive.org/web/20050409124902/http://www.yelavich.com/cicshist.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20071124013919/http://www.yelavich.com/history/toc.htm -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970