RE: Verifier Performance

John, I asked about the same thing quite a while ago.  At a minimum, I
thought the verifier should look at date of last source update for source
members and date of last change for files.  

The IBM response (which I can't seem to find) wasn't encouraging, although
that doesn't mean things won't be better in the future.  Apparently there
are a series of issues, including some related to multinational
considerations.

IBM has told us the communications manager is going to be improved; that's
going to relate to how QZRCSRVS works for member locking and Verify
performance.  My guess is that we're not going to be seeing anything until
the next OS/400 release unless the QZRCSRVS replacement is PTF'ed.  I
haven't heard of anything new in V5R2, so I'm assuming an improvement is in
the future.

This may not be much consolation, but the ability to compile from the IFS
may be IBM's oblique solution to Verify performance; I haven't experimented
with it because I'm still on V5R1.  I've addressed problems with cache
performance and results by clearing the cache frequently and running a
"verify" of a large member with my frequently-used /COPY members, PF',s, and
LF's.  It's ugly but it works.  It's butt ugly too.

-reeve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: code400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:code400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> John Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:34 PM
> To: code400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Verifier Performance
> 
> 
> I've been taking a look at why the verifier performs so poorly when not
> using a cache, and I've found that it uses the remote command server
> (QZRCSRVS) jobs extensively. These jobs run in QUSRWRK, and are set to end
> after a single use, which leads to dozens of jobs being started and ended
> with each run of the verifier.
> 
> I'm tempted to increase the number of uses allowed for each QZRCSRVS job,
> but am afraid of bad things happening if I do. Has anyone tried this?
> 
> I know some will be tempted to tell me to just use the cache, but please
> save the keystrokes. I find the cache to be of almost no use to me, since
my
> source members make extensive use of /copy members, which results in a
> frequent need to refresh the cache. And refreshing the cache takes longer
> than a verify done without it, so it's still quicker for me (overall) not
to
> use it.
> 
> I'm also hoping that the IBM team will chime in and and tell me that
they've
> improved the verifier in the upcoming release so that it makes more
> intelligent use of the server resources. Please..please tell me it's so.
> 
> 
> John Taylor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the CODE/400 Discussion & Support (CODE400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: CODE400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/code400-l
> or email: CODE400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/code400-l.
> 
> NOTE: WDSc for iSeries disucssion has it's own mailing list.
> Information can be found at
http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/wdsc-l