Cics TS V3

IBM Software Group
IBM CICS® Transaction Server for z/OS™ V3.1

Performance Report
April 2005
CICS Performance Group

IBM Hursley
© 2004 IBM Corporation

IBM Software Group
Performance summary (V3.1 compared to V2.3) -

Highlights
 Traditional VSAM (DSW workload)
– CPU used - Equivalent
 Traditional DB2 (RTW workload)
 Java
 HTTP
– Concurrent session limit raised from 900 to 65000 per region
– Some customers will start using persistent sessions and then also make CPU savings
 HTTPS
– Concurrent session limit raised from 250 to 65000 per region
 SOAP
– Using WSDL2CICS, our workload showed up to 20% CPU saving compared to CTS 2.3 SOAP feature
 Containers
– Program call using CONTAINER, within 2% CPU/Tran of COMMAREA linkage on 1 MIP application
 XPLINK
– Shorter pathlength for C++ method linkage
– Any benefits will depend on size, number of calls, depth of nested calls etc.
 OPENAPI
– Applications other than those that call DB2 can now exploit OPEN TCBs
– Throughput not limited by QR TCB, multiple CPUs can now be exploited concurrently.
2 IBM CICS TS for z/OS V3.1 | Performance Report © 2003 IBM Corporation
IBM Software Group
Hursley Performance Environment
 Exclusive use LPAR on Z990 2084 332

– 3 dedicated CPUs for system under test
 Shared use of LPAR for network simulation
 Use LSPR to scale CPU figures to other target systems

– 2084 332 ITR/32 or 2084 303 ITR/3 for CP speed
comparison?
• We found the 303/3 to be more accurate for scaling workloads
IBM Software Group
Release/Release
IBM Software Group
Release/Release Comparisons
 COBOL VSAM
– 'DSW ' workload
 COBOL DB2
– 'RTW' workload
 Java
– Standard Java/JCICS and EJB workload
 Compare ITR (tran per CPU second)
– Transaction rate in TORs/Total CICS regions CPU
 Taken from average of 5 Transaction rates
IBM Software Group
Release to Release - DSW Workload (VSAM)

 Hardware  Software
– 2084-303 system under test – z/OS 1.6
– 2084-303 TPNS driver
 CICS Environment  Workload

– 2 TORs, 2 AORs, 1 FOR all MRO connected – 34 transaction types
– All VSAM files recoverable – COBOL applications
– VTAM HPO used – 40% transactions invoke menu
– No transaction isolation or storage protection – 32 VSAM KSDS files
– Long running mirror in FOR – average 6 FC calls per transaction
– EXEC CICS LINK to program for each FC call
– 69% Read, 10% Read for Update, 9% Update,
– 11% Add , 1% Delete
– XEIIN and XEIOUT enabled
– TRUE enabled
– CICS Performance Monitoring on
IBM Software Group
DSW Performance Data
ITR
ETR TORs% AORs% FOR% Resp ms/tran
384.99 7.9 23.6 10.9 0.037 1.10 2727

531.50 10.6 32.2 14.8 0.036 1.08 2777
Average ITR = 2809 V2.3
708.11 14.2 42.4 19.0 0.039 1.06 2830
1055.21 20.9 62.7 28.5 0.036 1.06 2830
1586.01 31.6 92.8 41.5 0.040 1.04 2884
ITR
ETR TORs% AORs% FOR% Resp ms/tran
384.93 8.0 23.9 11.0 0.037 1.11 2702

531.49 10.8 32.5 14.9 0.036 1.09 2752
Average ITR = 2794 V3.1
710.50 14.2 43.1 19.3 0.035 1.07 2803
Delta = 0.5%
1053.94 20.8 63.2 28.5 0.037 1.06 2830
1564.69 30.8 92.0 40.7 0.043 1.04 2884
IBM Software Group
Release to Release - RTW Workload (DB2)
– 2084- 303 system under test – z/OS 1.6
– 2084- 303 TPNS driver
 Workload
 CICS Environment – 7 transaction types
– Single Region – COBOL applications - Not Thread safe
– 20 Database tables
 DB2 Environment – Average 200 DB2 calls per transaction
– 7.1.0 – 54% Select, 1% inset, 1% update,
1%delete,
– Thread priority = High
– 8% open cursor, 27% fetch cursor 8
– Protect num = 0 close cursor
– Account Rec = UOW – No CICS tracing
– SMF 89 not collected (usage pricing)
– No Class (1) accounting
IBM Software Group
RTW Performance Data

ITR
ETR CPU% Resp ms/tran
41.49 29.3 0.032 7.06 425

62.22 42.5 0.024 6.83 439
V2.3
Average ITR = 427 99.59 67.5 0.016 6.78 443 DB2 7.1
245.08 176.5 0.037 7.20 417
315.65 230.7 0.081 7.31 410
ITR
ETR CPU% Resp ms/tran
41.5 28.6 0.017 6.89 435
Average ITR = 426 62.64 42.8 0.017 6.83 439 V3.1

Delta = 0.2% 99.56 69.0 0.018 6.93 433 DB2 7.1
245.78 177.9 0.039 7.24 414
286.88 210.4 0.059 7.33 409
IBM Software Group
Release to Release - Java Workloads
– 2084-303 system under test – z/OS 1.6
– 2084-303 TPNS driver
 JCICS Workload
 CICS Environment – Simple Java application
– Single Region – Ave. 100 mixed API calls
– Java JDK 1.4.2 – 3270 driven
– Single JVM
– REUSE=RESET and  EJB workload
REUSE=YES
– Simple EJB
– Uses JCICS to call COBOL
'backend'
– COBOL application is about
3.4ms of CPU
IBM Software Group
JCICS Performance Data

ITR ITR
ETR CPU% Resp ms/tran ETR CPU% Resp ms/tran
66.20 24.8 .009 3.74 802.1 66.26 21.3 0.007 3.21 934.5
98.57 36.6 .013 3.71 808.6 99.19 32.1 0.008 3.23 928.7
139.75 51.6 .015 3.69 813.0 141.41 44.6 0.007 3.15 952.3
193.76 71.7 .016 3.70 810.8 195.43 61.4 0.010 3.14 955.4
254.98 94.2 .092 3.69 813.0 297.27 93.6 0.037 3.14 955.4
V2.3 REUSE=RESET V2.3 REUSE=YES

ITR ITR
66.23 25.1 0.008 3.78 793.6 66.43 21.6 0.008 3.25 923.0
98.70 37.1 0.011 3.75 800.0 99.32 32.3 0.008 3.25 923.0
139.69 52.3 0.014 3.74 802.1 141.40 44.6 0.007 3.15 952.3
193.49 72.5 0.016 3.74 802.1 197.07 61.8 0.007 3.13 958.4
251.92 94.3 0.097 3.74 802.1 298.36 94.1 0.035 3.15 952.3
IBM Software Group
EJB Performance Data

ITR ITR
83.34 43.9 0.007 5.26 570.3 83.43 33.9 0.005 4.06 738.9
95.12 50.1 0.007 5.26 570.3 95.13 38.6 0.005 4.05 740.0
110.38 58.1 0.008 5.26 570.3 110.6 44.7 0.005 4.05 740.0
131.73 69.2 0.010 5.25 571.4 132.16 53.4 0.006 4.04 742.5
185.50 97.3 0.028 5.24 572.5 188.86 76.1 0.008 4.02 746.2

ITR ITR
83.32 43.4 0.007 5.19 578.0 83.16 34.5 0.007 4.14 724.6
95.12 50.4 0.007 5.29 567.1 95.19 39.4 0.006 4.13 726.3
110.38 58.5 0.009 5.29 567.1 110.49 45.7 0.006 4.13 726.3
131.73 69.7 0.011 5.29 567.1 132.15 54.6 0.006 4.13 726.3
185.21 97.8 0.029 5.28 568.1 188.79 77.7 0.009 4.11 729.9
V3.1REUSE=RESET V3.1 REUSE=YES
IBM Software Group
HTTP
IBM Software Group
HTTP - Performance perspective
 Increase concurrent connections to 65000

– No affinity to long running CWXN transactions
 3.1 Customers with large networks
– Can now use keep-alive and SocketClose (NO)
– Now have a new CWXN for each request
– No need to make and break the connections
 Migrating from a keep-alive (no) environment
– Increased session limit and less CPU per request
 Migrating from a keep-alive (yes) environment
– Increased session limit, +3 to +4% CPU on a 2.5 MS transaction
IBM Software Group
Inbound HTTP - Storage per Connection
Approx. 4.8k per connection

IBM Software Group
HTTP CPU per Tran (COMMAREA)
IBM Software Group
HTTP CPU per Tran (WEB API up to 32K)
IBM Software Group
HTTP CPU per Tran (WEB API over 32k)
Includes TCPIP
IBM Software Group
HTTPS
IBM Software Group
HTTPS - Terms
 Full handshake
– Negotiate session parameters, cipher suite etc.
– Done once per connection by CWXN for a new connection
 Partial handshake
– Done when client has previously had an SSL connection that has
since been closed
• And the Client has retained SSL session id
• The Session id has been retained in CICS storage or Coupling Facility
– Done within the CWXN transaction
 Encrption/Decryption
– For a persistent connection only the one handshake is needed
– After that just Encyption/Decryption
– Done by the CWBA transaction
IBM Software Group
HTTPS - Terms
 Hashing
– Ensure data integrity during transport (ie. not been changed),
– Two common algorithms
• MD5 Done in software
• SHA-1 Done in Hardware
 CPACF
– CP Assist for Cryptographic Function
– Available on every CP so no affinity issues
– SHA-1 TDES and DES Encypt/decrypt done by these on Z990
 PCIXCC
– Peripheral Component Extended Cryptographic Coprocessor
– Full Handshakes are done by these on Z990 if ICSF active
– Handsheke rates and card Utilisation are recorded by RMF
IBM Software Group
HTTPS - Performance perspective
 Increase concurrent connections

– No affinity to SSL TCB for duration of connection
• SSL TCB per connection now not required
– No affinity to long running CWXN transaction
 Easy choice over Cipher suites
– Specified on TCPIPSERVICE definition
 Sysplex wide cache for SSL session id
IBM Software Group
HTTPS - Storage per Connection
V2.3 - physical restriction was

V3.1
17K below line per connection
Max. = 65000 connections
+ 1.5 M above per connection
Approx. 10K EDSA + 3K MVS
+ I TCB per connection
storage per connection
Max. = 250 connections
IBM Software Group
V2.3 Vs V3.1 HTTPS

- DES 56 Encryption / Decryption costs
Data taken from RMF, includes CWXN and CWBA

IBM Software Group
HTTPS – Encryption / Decryption costs
SSL_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (approx. 0.022 ms CPU per 1k)

SSL_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (approx. 0.038 ms CPU per 1k)
SSL_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 (approx. 0.180 ms CPU per 1k)
SSL_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA (approx. 0.015 ms CPU per 1k)
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (approx. 0.046 ms CPU per 1k)
IBM Software Group
HTTPS (DES 56) vs HTTP Encryption/Decryption costs
IBM Software Group
SSL Full Handshake CPU costs
Includes CSOL, CWXN and CWBA CPU costs

IBM Software Group
SSL Partial Handshake CPU costs
Includes CSOL, CWXN and CWBA CPU costs
IBM Software Group
OPEN API
IBM Software Group
Open API
 Running on 'Open TCBs' gives CPU concurrency

 Throughput is not limited to the speed of a single CP
 Reduces any contention for the 'QR' TCB
 Open API is not intended to reduce CPU per
transaction
 It does give more potential throughput per region
 Allows the application to use other APIs
– Those that would otherwise 'block' the QR TCB
IBM Software Group
Open API
 Prior to V3.1
– Threadsafe DB2 applications ran on L8 Open TCBs after a
DB2 call
 V3.1
– Threadsafe and CICSAPI or OPENAPI on program
definition
– OPENAPI puts program on L8 or L9 during initialisation
– USER key = L9 CICS key = L8
IBM Software Group
Open API
CICS API OPEN API

CPU secs used per minute CPU secs used per minute
at 482 trans per sec at 1065 trans per sec
Quasi - max. ETR = 482 OPEN - max. ETR = 1065

CPU per tran = 2.26ms CPU per tran = 2.54ms
IBM Software Group
Open API Cautions!
 Choose applications carefully

– Avoid applications with non-threadsafe APIs
• e.g.. lots of File Control (this will cause TCB switching back to QR)
 Migrating Threadsafe DB2 applications from V2.3

– userkey/threadsafe on V2.3 ------------------- application runs on L8
– userkey/threadsafe/OPENAPI on V3.1 ----- application runs on L9
• DB2 calls then need to switch to L8!
– Leave DB2 Threadsafe applications moving from V2.3 as
CICSAPI!
IBM Software Group
XPLINK
IBM Software Group
XPLINK
 XPLINK introduced in OS/390 V2.10

– feature of z/OS that provides high performance subroutine call
and return mechanism
– Supported by C/C++ compiler of z/OS
– Specified by C/C++ compiler option XPLINK
– Previously not supported in CICS
 XPLINK requires MVS LE rather than CICSLE
– Therefore application requires own TCB to run on
 XPLINK programs execute like OPENAPI programs
– Runs on an X8 or X9 TCB with MVS/LE rather than L8 or L9 with
CICS/LE
– CICS detects at runtime that program compiled with XPLINK
IBM Software Group
XPLINK cautions!
 XPLINK programs run on X8 or X9 TCBs

– Mixing DB2 calls will cause switches to L8 TCBs
– Might be better not using XPLINK but C++ with
THREADSAFE CICSAPI for DB2
 Mixing lots of non_threadsafe CICS API will cause
excessive switching to QR TCB
 Foundation Classes are currently not XPLINK
compiled
– A call to one of these will cause a TCB switch
IBM Software Group
Channels and
Containers
IBM Software Group
Performance Evaluation Configuration
 COBOL program links to COBOL program

 2.5ms of application program logic
 Comparison of data transfer using:
– Commareas
– Channels and Containers
– Temporary Storage Queues
IBM Software Group
Commarea application
Sender program Receiver program

EXEC CICS GETMAIN
EXEC CICS LINK ...

EXEC CICS RETURN
COMMAREA
EXEC CICS RETURN
32K max data restriction
IBM Software Group
Channel application

EXEC CICS GETMAIN EXEC CICS GET
CONTAINER
EXEC CICS PUT
CONTAINER EXEC CICS RETURN
EXEC CICS LINK ...
CHANNEL
EXEC CICS RETURN
Single container used for data

No restriction on data size
IBM Software Group
TSQ application

EXEC CICS GETMAIN EXEC CICS READQ TS
EXEC CICS WRITEQ TS
EXEC CICS RETURN
EXEC CICS LINK
EXEC CICS DELETEQ TS
EXEC CICS RETURN
Multiple TSQ items used for data size >32K
IBM Software Group
Single Region Links < 32K
IBM Software Group
Single Region Links >32K
IBM Software Group
MRO Link < 32K
IBM Software Group
SOAP Pipeline
IBM Software Group
SOAP Provider Pipeline
HTTP
SOAP SOAP Pipeline App Handler Business Logic
Client
Handles Converter Business
HTTP layer between logic program
and SOAP XML SOAP
Envelope Body and
data structure
IBM Software Group
SOAP support in CICS
 CICS SOAP support

– SOAP for CICS Feature in V2.2 and V2.3
• HTTP or WebSphere MQ used at transport layer
• user-written application handler required
• commarea-based business logic application
– SOAP support integrated into V3.1
• HTTP or WebSphere MQ used at transport layer
• user-written application handler NOT required
• business logic application can be:
– commarea or container based
IBM Software Group
Application Handler
 V2.2 and V2.3 options

– User-written application required to:
• Convert XML SOAP body input to language data structure
• Invoke commarea-based business logic program
• Convert language data structure output to XML SOAP body
– WSED converter (WSED version 5.1.2)
• WebSphere Studio Enterprise Developer
• Generates driver, input and output programs from business logic
program source code
• Upload programs to z/OS and install in CICS
– New Handler required for each business logic program
IBM Software Group
CICS Web Services Assistant
 Batch component
– DFHLS2WS batch program
• Language data structure input
• HFS WSDL and WSbind files created
– DFHWS2LS batch program
• HFS WSDL file input
• Language data structure and HFS WSbind files created
– New WSbind file required for each business logic program
IBM Software Group
CICS Web Services Assistant
 Runtime component
– Pipeline install process
• Accesses WSbind files from pickup directory
• Copies WSbind files to shelf directory
– Runtime
• Pipeline reads WSbind file
• Converts input XML SOAP body to language data structure
• Invokes commarea/container based business logic program
• Converts output language data structure to XML SOAP body
IBM Software Group
Performance Evaluation #1
 Compare for 'simple' SOAP message:

– SOAP for CICS Feature in V2.3
• with user-written app handler
– SOAP pipeline in V3.1
– SOAP pipeline in V3.
• using CWSA (CICS Web Services Assistant)
IBM Software Group
Simple SOAP Message
msecs
cpu per V3.1
transaction V2.3 V3.1 CWSA V3.1
User User without CWSA
Program Program PTF with
1.35 ms 1.13 ms 1.28 ms PTF
1.11 ms
IBM Software Group
 Compare for 'typical' SOAP message:

– SOAP for CICS Feature in V2.3
• using CWSA
• with WSED converter app handler
IBM Software Group
Typical SOAP message
 The next series of evaluations all use the 'typical'

SOAP message
– These include:
• SOAP provider and requester environments
• HTTP and WebSphere MQ transport layers
 Variations in SOAP message size and # of elements

are discussed later
IBM Software Group
Typical SOAP Message
msecs
cpu per V3.1
tran V2.3 V3.1 V3.1 CWSA
User User WSED without
V3.1
Program Program Converte PTF
CWSA
3.46 ms r 4.47 ms
3.41 ms with PTF
6.47 ms
2.64 ms
IBM Software Group
Typical SOAP Message
SOAP2.3 comparison:
WSED3.1 +89.7%
V3.1 -1.5%
CWSA3.1 -22.6%
IBM Software Group
 Compare for 'typical' SOAP message:

– CICS SOAP requester region
• SOAP for CICS Feature V2.3
• SOAP pipeline in V3.1 using CWSA
– CICS SOAP provider region
• SOAP for CICS Feature V2.3
• SOAP pipeline in V3.1 using CWSA
– Transport Layer communication
• HTTP
• WebSphere MQ (WMQ)
IBM Software Group
CICS Requester and Provider Environment
Http or WMQ
3270 Requester Application

screen Receive
input Provider Application
Put Container
Handle input commarea
Invoke Webservice
Generate output commarea
Get Container
Return
Send
Return
<========== LPAR ==========>
IBM Software Group
SOAP HTTP Requester - V3.1 vs V2.3
CWSA HTTP -19%
IBM Software Group
SOAP Requester - HTTP vs WMQ
CWSA WMQ +53.6%
IBM Software Group
SOAP Provider - HTTP vs WMQ
CWSA WMQ +30.5%
IBM Software Group
Variations
The table below shows how the CPU usage changes with
variations in the processing of the SOAP message
Change: % cpu increase

Commarea to Container program 0.91%
SOAP1.1 node to SOAP1.2 node 0%
Add header processing program 3.95%
Note: Header processing programs within the SOAP

node are invoked on input and on output
IBM Software Group
SOAP inbound message size
1.1ms for null SOAP msg

0.05ms for every K of data
IBM Software Group
SOAP outbound message size

0.042ms for every K of data
IBM Software Group
SOAP inbound elements

0.043ms for every 100 elements
IBM Software Group
SOAP outbound elements
IBM Software Group
Sizing SOAP message
SOAP message consists of:

SOAP Prefix and Suffix
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns: .............>
<SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
Operation name
<PGRMNAMEOperation>
</PGRMNAMEOperation>
SOAP Body elements
<element1>1234</element1>
IBM Software Group
Sizing SOAP message
SOAP message size is the sum of:

 SOAP Prefix and Suffix
– 278 bytes
 Operation name
– (program_name_length*2)+23 bytes
 SOAP Body elements
– (avg_element_name_length*2)+avg_element_data_length+5
– multiply by number of elements
IBM Software Group
Sizing Example
Example with:
4K commarea
program name 8 bytes
average element name length 8 bytes
# elements average SOAP msg

data length size (bytes)
128 32 7,101
512 8 15,165
2048 2 47,421
4096 1 90,429
IBM Software Group
Sizing Example
Example with:
4K commarea
program name 8 bytes
# elements avg len of average SOAP msg

element data length size (bytes)
128 8 32 7,101
512 16 8 23,357
2048 24 2 112,957
4096 30 1 270,653
IBM Software Group
Codepage conversion
IBM Software Group
Performance evaluation overview
 z/OS Conversion Services

 Evaluations performed within CICS using containers
 Conversion occurs between PUT and GET container
 Codepages used in testing
– EBCDIC (037)
– ASCII (437)
– UTF-8 (1208)
– UTF-16 (1200)
 2 stage conversions for UTF-8 to/from EBCDIC or
ASCII
IBM Software Group
Results summary
 CPU milliseconds to convert 1K characters

– UTF-8 (1208) to ASCII (437) 0.0094
– UTF-8 (1208) to EBCDIC (037) 0.0093
– UTF-8 (1208) to UTF-16 (1200) 0.0090
– ASCII (437) to UTF-8 (1208) 0.0087
– EBCDIC (037) to UTF-8 (1208) 0.0087
– UTF-16 (1200) to UTF-8 (1208) 0.0076
– EBCDIC (037) to UTF-16 (1200) 0.0031
– ASCII (437) to UTF-16 (1200) 0.0030
– UTF-16 (1200) to EBCDIC (037) 0.0021
– UTF-16 (1200) to ASCII (437) 0.0021
– EBCDIC (037) to ASCII (437) 0.0014
– ASCII (437) to EBCDIC (037) 0.0014
IBM Software Group
'WRAPPERS'
IBM Software Group
'V3.1 Wrappers‘ Relative CPU costs
Data taken from RMF

Cics TS V3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cics TS V3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBM Software Group

IBM CICS® Transaction Server for z/OS™ V3.1

CICS Performance Group

© 2004 IBM Corporation

Performance summary (V3.1 compared to V2.3) -

Hursley Performance Environment

 Exclusive use LPAR on Z990 2084 332

 Shared use of LPAR for network simulation

 Use LSPR to scale CPU figures to other target systems

Release to Release - DSW Workload (VSAM)

 CICS Environment  Workload

DSW Performance Data

384.99 7.9 23.6 10.9 0.037 1.10 2727

384.93 8.0 23.9 11.0 0.037 1.11 2702

Release to Release - RTW Workload (DB2)

RTW Performance Data

41.49 29.3 0.032 7.06 425

41.5 28.6 0.017 6.89 435

Average ITR = 426 62.64 42.8 0.017 6.83 439 V3.1

Release to Release - Java Workloads

JCICS Performance Data

V2.3 REUSE=RESET V2.3 REUSE=YES

V3.1 REUSE=RESET V3.1 REUSE=YES

EJB Performance Data

V2.3 REUSE=RESET V2.3 REUSE=YES

V3.1REUSE=RESET V3.1 REUSE=YES

HTTP - Performance perspective

 Increase concurrent connections to 65000

Inbound HTTP - Storage per Connection

Approx. 4.8k per connection

HTTP CPU per Tran (COMMAREA)

HTTP CPU per Tran (WEB API up to 32K)

HTTP CPU per Tran (WEB API over 32k)

HTTPS - Performance perspective

 Increase concurrent connections

HTTPS - Storage per Connection

V2.3 - physical restriction was

V2.3 Vs V3.1 HTTPS

Data taken from RMF, includes CWXN and CWBA

HTTPS – Encryption / Decryption costs

SSL_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (approx. 0.022 ms CPU per 1k)

HTTPS (DES 56) vs HTTP Encryption/Decryption costs

SSL Full Handshake CPU costs

Includes CSOL, CWXN and CWBA CPU costs

SSL Partial Handshake CPU costs

Includes CSOL, CWXN and CWBA CPU costs

 Running on 'Open TCBs' gives CPU concurrency

CICS API OPEN API

Quasi - max. ETR = 482 OPEN - max. ETR = 1065

Open API Cautions!

 Choose applications carefully

 Migrating Threadsafe DB2 applications from V2.3

 XPLINK introduced in OS/390 V2.10

 XPLINK programs run on X8 or X9 TCBs

Performance Evaluation Configuration

 COBOL program links to COBOL program

Sender program Receiver program

EXEC CICS LINK ...

32K max data restriction

Sender program Receiver program

Single container used for data

Sender program Receiver program