Re: Service Programs / Binding Directories / *DUPPROC

IBM may well have suggested that - but the proposed approach won't help.

It has always been one of the strengths of the S/38 - AS/400 - IBM i architectures that there is only ever one copy of program in memory.

This is one reason why I think it is a bad idea to copy modules into programs rather than use a service program - if you copy the module into two programs you have 2 x the memory footprint of that module.

Storage defined by the module is always per job. So if you had a program that used (say) 5Gb of instructions and defined variables that occupied 1Mb then running 50 concurrent instances would use 5Gb + 50Mb.

The approach you mentioned would have some effect, but only because temp storage in the job for a file buffer etc. would only be allocated when needed and delaying the SP load would achieve that. But frankly the architecture needs changing - this approach is not likely to offer real long-term relief and will be quite a lot of work.


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Feb 7, 2018, at 5:34 PM, dlclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

"RPG400-L" <rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/07/2018 04:59:28
PM:

On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:00 PM, dlclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

"RPG400-L" <rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/07/2018

12:57:06

PM:

I would not have encountered this Brian because I would never put a
module in a binding directory.

If I remember correctly, the ability to list modules in binding
directories was intended as an easy method for building programs
from multiple modules. But few people do that - I certainly don't.

We have a program that is built from ~83 modules. That said...

We

are starting a project now to split those modules out each into their

own

service program (using *DEFER on the binding). Why? We need to

decrease

the size of the memory footprint for this program because it is
long-running and there are ~600 jobs that execute this program as its

main

process.

Since the memory for the program will be shared by all instances how
will this help Dave?

Really? All ~600 jobs share the memory for the program? Didn't
know that. All I can tell you is that our folks and some folks from IBM
looked at our system and said we needed to reduce the temporary storage
allocation required for these ~600 long-running jobs.


Sincerely,

Dave Clark
--
int.ext: 91078
direct: (937) 531-6378
home: (937) 751-3300

Winsupply Group Services
3110 Kettering Boulevard
Dayton, Ohio 45439 USA
(937) 294-5331




*********************************************************************************************
This email message and any attachments is for use only by the named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential, privileged and/or proprietary
information. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete and destroy the message and all
copies. All unauthorized direct or indirect use or disclosure of this
message is strictly prohibited. No right to confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any error in transmission.
*********************************************************************************************
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD