[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-202067-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-202067-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","a-comparison-of-cics-qr-and-ote-performance-march-2012","A Comparison of CICS QR and OTE Performance - March 2012","","Paper compares performance of a 3270-based workload running in IBM CICS QR (Quasi-Reentrant) versus CICS OTE (Open Transaction Environment – threadsafe) modes. Using RTW on IBM zEnterprise 196 with dedicated CP counts from 8 to 32, it evaluates transactions per second (ETR), response time, and total LPAR CPU busy. Measurements isolate the effect of transaction mode and equivalent CP/AOR alignment, then quantify scaling behavior and performance deltas, concluding with tuning guidance and observed throughput and latency improvements.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-comparison-of-cics-qr-and-ote-performance-march-2012/202067/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-comparison-of-cics-qr-and-ote-performance-march-2012/202067.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"McQueen","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-09","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What workload and system were used to compare CICS QR and CICS OTE performance?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The comparison used a 3270-based RTW workload with CICS/DB2, running on an IBM zEnterprise 196 (z196). Dedicated CP counts ranged from 8 to 32.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which metrics were used to evaluate QR vs OTE modes?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The paper compares transactions per second (ETR), achieved response time, and total LPAR CPU busy percentage between QR and OTE modes.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What were the main performance findings for OTE versus QR?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"ETR scaled nearly linearly in both modes, but OTE delivered significantly higher transaction rates at every measurement point. OTE also improved response time, reaching up to about an 80% improvement in most measurements.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},202067,1788541851,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":123,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":143,"preview_page_count":4},5909890329169,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","IBM CICS Transaction Server V4.2  \nA Comparison of CICS QR and OTE  \nPerformance  \nMarch 2012  \nIBM Hardware Acceleration Lab  \nNicholas C. Matsakis  \nWei K. Liu  \nGreg Dyck  \nTerry Borden  \n© Copyright IBM Corporation 2012 A Comparison of CICS QR and OTE Performance 1  \nOverview ......................................................................................................................................... 3  \nResult Highlights ........................................................................................................................ 3  \nComparison of CICS QR and CICS OTE modes ....................................................................... 3  \n3270 CICS/DB2 workload (RTW) ................................................................................................. 4  \nNetwork simulation ..................................................................................................................... 4  \nEnvironment ................................................................................................................................ 4  \nPerformance data collection........................................................................................................ 5  \nTuning and Configuration Used.................................................................................................. 5  \nSwitching to OTE ....................................................................................................................... 5  \nResults ............................................................................................................................................. 6  \n3270 based RTW Benchmark results for QR ............................................................................. 6  \n3270 based RTW Benchmark results for Threadsafe OTE ........................................................ 7  \nConclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 8  \nReference Material .......................................................................................................................... 9  \n© Copyright IBM Corporation 2012 A Comparison of CICS QR and OTE Performance 2  \nOverview  \nIn this paper we compare the performance of a 3270-based workload running in CICS® QR (Quasi-Reentrant) and CICS OTE (Open Transaction Environment – threadsafe) modes. We used RTW, one of our traditional CICS®/DB2® workloads running on configurations with different numbers of dedicated CPs (8 to 32) on anIBM zEnterprise 196 (z196). We usedRMF™ measurement data to compare the number of transactions per second (ETR), response time achieved, and total LPAR CPU busy percentage between QR andOTE modes. Other than the transaction mode, the number ofCPs, and matching the appropriate number of AORsforthe number ofCPs, there were no other configuration differences between the measurement environments.  \nResult Highlights  \nThis paper maybe useful in understanding the potential scale improvement and or cost reductions that might be achieved by using the CICS Open Services inOTE mode.  \nThe measurements showed the following points:  \n• The transaction rate (ETR) scaled nearly linearly as additional CPs were added in both CICS QR and OTE modes.  \n• CICS OTE mode achieved significantly higher transaction rates (ETR) than CICS QR at every measurement point.  \n• CICS OTE had better response time, achieving up to an 80% improvement in most of the measurements.  \nComparison ofCICS QR and CICS OTE modes  \nPrior to OTE, all application code ran under themain CICS® TCB called the Quasi-Reentrant (QR) TCB/Task. The CICS dispatcher sub-dispatched the use of the QRTCB between the CICS transactions. Each transaction voluntarily gives up control when it issues a CICS service. There is only one CICS transaction active at anytime on the QRTCB.  \nOTE introduced a new class of TCB called an open TCB, which can be","cbCaickWURAYEVIc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaickWURAYEVIc","pdf",92911,"English","# Overview\n## Result Highlights\n## Comparison of CICS QR and CICS OTE modes\n## 3270 CICS/DB2 workload (RTW)\n## Network simulation\n## Environment\n## Performance data collection\n## Tuning and Configuration Used\n## Switching to OTE\n## Results\n## Conclusion\n## Reference Material","[{\"question\":\"What workload and system were used to compare CICS QR and CICS OTE performance?\",\"answer\":\"The comparison used a 3270-based RTW workload with CICS/DB2, running on an IBM zEnterprise 196 (z196). Dedicated CP counts ranged from 8 to 32.\"},{\"question\":\"Which metrics were used to evaluate QR vs OTE modes?\",\"answer\":\"The paper compares transactions per second (ETR), achieved response time, and total LPAR CPU busy percentage between QR and OTE modes.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main performance findings for OTE versus QR?\",\"answer\":\"ETR scaled nearly linearly in both modes, but OTE delivered significantly higher transaction rates at every measurement point. OTE also improved response time, reaching up to about an 80% improvement in most measurements.\"}]","A Comparison of CICS QR and OTE Performance - March 2012 | PDF",25]