Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:18:41 +0100
Reply-To: CICS List <CICS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender: CICS List <CICS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Roland Schiradin <roland@SCHIRADIN.DE>
Subject: Re: COBOL 2.2 "Local Storage" vs "Working Storage"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
from my understanding.
Working-Storage is not threadsafe. Means it exists as long as the LE
enclave (Cobol term run-unit) exist and if you enter the same program
times it remains in the last-used state. Local-Storage is threadsafe.
Local storage is obtained from the stack and LE contains his own
to avoid several getmain/freemain for a single local-storage. You should
check your STACK setting using the transaction CLER or parm-card in batch.
As CICS doesn't support multithreaded (POSIX) application it's not a big
to change from Working-Storage to Local-Storage but it makes sure the
application programs are threadsafe and rent. Using the last-used state WS
feature is nice but in terms of CICS we should use temporary storage.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CICS List [mailto:CICS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf Of McKown,
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:15 PM
> To: CICS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: COBOL 2.2 "Local Storage" vs "Working Storage"
> We plan to upgrade to COBOL for OS/390 2.2 in 2003 (yes, we're still VS
> COBOL II and even some OS/VS COBOL 2.4!). One thing that is new in this
> COBOL is LOCAL STORAGE. Is there any plus (or minus) to start using LOCAL
> STORAGE instead of WORKING STORAGE? I'm especially concerned
> about anything
> which could cause an increase in CPU utilization. From my reading, it
> appears that WORKING STORAGE would have less CPU overhead since
> it is gotten
> at the start of a run-unit whereas LOCAL STORAGE is gotten when
> the program
> is entered. But I'm not sure if this is really applicable to a
> CICS program.
> I'm not talking about a mass conversion, but for new development.
> Is there a
> manual which discusses this, especially in a CICS context? This will be in
> CICS 4.1 and CICS/TS 1.3.