Jeff Smith said > For a production > system, I would always use a server space with appropriate runtime tests > and recovery routines in case an operator "accidentally" cancels the > server space. A nonswappable server space that doesn't consume significant > CPU cycles is cheap. The client spaces get charged for the CPU time while > in the PC routine, which is a good thing, IMHO.
I completely agree. However, you would be gob-smacked at the number of customers who don't seem to understand those architectural requirements anymore. I can't begin to count the number of times I've encountered wailing and moaning over "another address space" even when the address space in question does nothing more than sit there like a bump on a log, just serving as an anchor point to satisfy z/OS resource management rules. "Oh well" CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
