Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153423

Re: high level language idea

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: high level language idea
Date	2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
Organization	NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Message-ID	<n0p7vr02cpd@news7.newsguy.com> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <87mvv4ffzu.fsf@lhwserver.localdomain> <n0oa0t$4vo$1@dont-email.me> <6123c033-1d82-479c-8f1a-85e575784187@googlegroups.com> <n0oksb17sl@news3.newsguy.com> <a0395158-69ed-4ea8-adf8-b641e3e58fbd@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2015-10-28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 3:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Yup.  My basic rule for large files was to try never to put an
>> input and an output file on the same drive.  Most systems I worked
>> on had 4 drives, so this was usually not difficult.
>
> Actually, I'm trying to remember how many disk drives we had--it may
> have been only one.  Back then, 100 meg was a lot of space and we were
> a small outfit.

I never heard of a system with less than two drives.  It just wouldn't
be worth it.  How would you do backups?  (Many systems I worked on
didn't have tape.)

> The operating system for the 90/30 would allow up to five jobs running
> at once.  But I discovered CPU and disk contention effectively limited
> us to one job at a time.  It would actually take longer to run two jobs
> side by side rather than serially.  (One good thing about being small
> was that I could get the machine to myself and experiment.)

The number of jobs was a sysgen option - you could configure as many as
seven job slots (at least in later versions of OS/3).  Some cheapskates
would configure only three slots, but the job slot tables were too small
for this to justify limiting yourself that way.  In my experience, three
concurrent jobs would hit the point of diminishing returns, although
this would vary according to how I/O-bound you were, how well you could
spread files across drives, and how much memory you had.  (Most systems
I worked on had 192K; some people would try to cheap out - with the
encouragement of low-balling salesmen - and wound up with 128K, which
put them in a world of hurt.)

One irritating quirk of OS/3 was that it didn't time-slice jobs of
equal priority.  If you ran a CPU-bound job against an I/O-bound one
(or your program went into a loop), the I/O-bound job would grind to
a halt.  You could adjust priorities from the console to get both jobs
running smoothly, or specify priorities in JCL.  This latter option
became much more practical in a later relase which let you specify
a default priority other than the lowest, which meant that you could
lower the priority of CPU-bound jobs, rather than having to modify
the JCL for every other job in the shop to increase their programs'
priority.  I suppose that in a commercial environment, where most
jobs were I/O-bound, this wasn't as bad a crime as it would be in
a scientific shop, but still, it was a pain.

I remember trying to copy a disk file to a tape in a shop that was
running a CPU-bound payroll program.  Now I know payroll is very
important, but these guys went right over the top, doing things
like cranking the priority up as high as it would go even though
it didn't make the job run any faster.  What it did do was make
my tape dump come to a halt, even though it used neglegible CPU.
When nobody was looking, I'd re-adjust the priorities - the payroll
job's tape drive would still write its usual block every 5 seconds
(I said it was CPU-bound), while my tape drive would run full bore.
Naturally, once the staff came back and saw this, they immediately
reshuffled the priorities so my job stopped.  Grrr...

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Thread

high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-20 17:47 -0400
  Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-21 01:09 +0000
    Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-21 14:44 -0500
      Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:15 -0700
  Re: high level language idea davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2015-10-21 01:16 +0000
    Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:26 -0400
      Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 12:13 -0700
        Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 15:23 -0400
  Re: high level language idea bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 03:53 -0700
    Re: high level language idea rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-21 13:47 +0000
      Re: high level language idea "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:58 +0100
        Re: high level language idea Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-21 10:34 -0400
        Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-21 16:43 +0000
      Re: high level language idea rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-21 14:46 +0000
    Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:29 -0400
      Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-21 14:19 -0500
        Re: high level language idea Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-21 15:24 -0400
          Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-22 14:13 -0500
            Re: high level language idea "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-23 09:55 -0500
              Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 11:42 -0400
                Re: high level language idea "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-23 11:48 -0500
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 10:47 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-24 21:24 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-24 21:14 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-25 11:31 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-25 18:13 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-23 11:20 -0700
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 11:45 -0700
              Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-24 21:11 -0500
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 07:40 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-27 08:30 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-27 09:11 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 12:52 -0400
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:22 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 14:37 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 17:46 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
                Re: high level language idea jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
                Re: high level language idea "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 13:59 +0000
                Re: high level language idea jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-29 14:28 +0000
                Re: high level language idea "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:06 +1100
                Re: high level language idea pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:55 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:21 -0600
                Re: high level language idea pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0000
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:33 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 16:58 +0000
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 10:10 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 20:08 +0000
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:58 -0700
                Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:53 -0500
                Re: high level language idea - TTF Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 17:11 -0400
                Re: high level language idea - TTF scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:24 +0000
                Re: high level language idea - TTF hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:37 -0700
                Re: high level language idea - TTF Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 16:58 +0000
                Re: high level language idea - TTF Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-28 15:10 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-28 08:04 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 11:34 -0400
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:14 -0700
                Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 14:30 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-27 19:29 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 16:57 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-27 21:50 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 17:58 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 09:04 +0000
                Re: high level language idea "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:42 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-28 14:55 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-28 15:02 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-28 19:15 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:25 -0600
                Re: high level language idea Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:54 -0400
                Re: high level language idea Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 19:19 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
                Re: high level language idea scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:36 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-28 17:54 +0000
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 20:08 +0000
                Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:54 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-13 16:05 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 17:20 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-15 08:14 -0500
                Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 18:00 -0700
      Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 12:21 -0700
        Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 15:25 -0400
        Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 17:14 -0400
          Re: high level language idea jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-22 12:51 +0000
        Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
      Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-21 19:43 +0000
        Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:09 -0700
          Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-22 02:52 +0000
          Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-23 16:04 -0500
    Re: high level language idea Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-28 20:19 -0400
  Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 07:35 -0700
    Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-21 19:43 +0000
      Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:00 -0700
        Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-21 13:35 -0700
          Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:50 -0700
            Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
              Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-22 07:22 -0700
                Re: high level language idea John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-24 00:42 +0000
                Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-24 20:26 -0700
                Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:36 -0500
            Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-21 15:31 -0700
            Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-20 17:17 -0500
        Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-20 17:00 -0500
          Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-20 22:20 +0000
            Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 08:35 -0500
      Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-23 16:00 -0500
        Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-23 21:07 +0000
        Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-20 17:31 -0500
          Re: high level language idea Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-25 11:28 -0800
            Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-12-22 14:00 -0500
              Re: high level language idea Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-12-22 11:43 -0800

csiph-web