Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Roy Hewitt said:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:24:19 +0000
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 ...
*Fully* failing to recognize the needs of single-CPC sites which require
uninterrupted operation and accurate time.
-- gil
Paul,
That's maybe a little unfair.. (or was it aimed at IBM??). I do
recognise those needs, which is what I meant by "frustrations of
single-CPC sites". I was just attempting to counter Ed's generalisation
that it was just a "nice to have" and not "high on anyones list". There
are lots of sites (both single and multi CPC) for which the Timer is
essential. I find that the difference of opinion between the two type of
sites is usually cost based. For the large multi-CPC sites, the cost is
usually trivial compared to other HW and SW licensing costs. For these
sites the benefit of enabling multiCPC sysplex and datasharing far
outways the Timer cost. For the single CPC sites - I presume your's is
one of those - it is often seen as an expensive option, and rightly so.
And this I suppose comes down to IBM's view (back in the early 90's)
that sysplex was the way to go. Its a pity that it's taken so long to
release an alternative (STP) to the Timer, and even more so that it is
chargable. As I said in my last post, it would be good if it were
non-chargable for singleCPCs..
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
