Ed
I think your undestanding of the both the Sysplex Timer and STP is a
little incorrect.. comments inserted..
Ed Gould wrote:
Tim:
Just curious about the offering. IBM seems to think (if I understand
what is being offered correctly). That most mainframes are hooked up to
the internet. While this may be true for some companies, I suspect it is
not true for most.
I'm not sure were you get this from, what has the STP got to do with
being connected to the internet?. Nothing I've seen implies this.
The sysplex timer (IMO) was a costly "feature" IMO it
really didn't offer a real payback. While it may have been nice to have
it really wasn't high on anyones list of got to have this.
Ok, so the price might have been on the high side, and I *fully*
understand the frustrations of single-CPC sites and external time
syncronisation, but remember the primary function of the sysplex timer
is to syncronise time *bewteen* CPCs. So yes, I would never expect it
to be on the list of "got to haves" for single-CPC sites - they don't
have another CPC to sync with. However, when you consider its prime
purpose, and you run your plex across CPCs, then the timer is right near
the top of "must haves". Its all about context and what the device was
designed to do. Unfortunatlely, as the timer (and now STP) is the only
way for ETS synconisation, in the context of small sites it can seem a
rough deal.
I worked at a
place that had one and IMO it was a box that not vary many people had a
clue what it was.
On one hand you have an expensive (25K IIRC) piece of equipment that
really didn't offer a hard return.
Like I said above, enabling multi-CPC plexes is a pretty good return.
It's just as essential as a coupling facility - do you think that CFs
don't offer a hard return, just the cost of a single ICF is way more
that a timer.
On the other hand is a piece of
software that if ordered requires a hook up to the Internet. Just how
many companies are going to go for that kind of trade off? On one hand a
secure environment and on the other hand the timer is costly yet
reasonably secure.
One final coment about the STP feature. Although we might not like it, I
suppose that its to be expected that IBM charge for it - they dont give
CF links away do they? However, it would probably be better if they had
decided to enable the feature in 2 levels - Single CPC and multi-CPC.
Single CPC would just facilitate ETS sync, and multi CPC being the full
blown STP.. (and if they were feeling real generous, the SingleCPC mode
would be included in the base price ;-)
Regards
Roy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
