On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:14:15 +1000, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: > >> The jury is still out on what a good default to set is (I have >> mine set to 10G), but IMHO setting memlimit to anything less >> than 2G makes no sense. > >Seems a lot of people are in the process of the 1.4 - 1.7 "leap of >faith". Lots of things will start raising their heads - this being one. >On my testbed I (deliberately) have all the dodgy traps in place, and >memlimit zero. >Hence I know about the Java_64 issue. >For those taking the plunge this is probably a good time to heed Marks >advice. > >However, ... >it does exemplify the concerns I have expressed in the past. If the >architects of (z/OS) Java_64 were unable to conceive of a means of >making their product 64 bit capable without actually requiring storage >above the bar, how competent can we expect the users to be. I'm not sure what you're saying here - what's the point of a 64-bit product that doesn't use 64-bit storage? Do you think maybe it should check to see if there's no 64-bit and use 31-bit instead? Why introduce such complexity when there is a perfectly adequate 31-bit version of the same product available?
Tom Grieve CICS Development IBM Hursley Park P.S. I posted a version of this earlier today via Outlook Express (it was Monday morning...), so apologies if you are seeing double. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
