scott_j_f...@yahoo.com (Scott Ford) writes: > Just for my 2 cents worth, ran P390s in one environment attached to two T1s. > Attached to them we're 3800 laser printers and some 3274s we couldnt replace. > The mainframes were an hour plus away in NJ, and our printed output queued up > to the P390s. > Everything worked like a champ. I am now on Z/Pdt z/os1.12 on a intel > i7', everything s good, but are also only doing development. > > Scott ford > www.identityforge.com
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#18 X86 server http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#19 X86 server http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#20 X86 server 1980 STL is bursting at the seams and they are moving 300 people from IMS group to off-site bldg. the group tries remote 3270 support and find it intolerable. I get con'ed into writing HYPERChannel support for use as channel extender ... allowing them to put local channel-attached 3270 controllers at the remote site. Runs over T1 channel on the *campus* collins digital radio T3 microwave. They don't notice any change from cms local 3270 controllers in STL (maintaining their subsecond response ... back when mvs/tso people were claiming noody needed subsecond response). System thruput actually improves ... issue is the HYPERChannel A220s sitting on real channel have significantly lower channel busy (for the same operation) than 3270 controllers ... total system throughput improves 10-15% (the 3270 controller channel busy is masked at the remote site). I try to get approval to release the software to customers ... which a group in POK manages to block. That group was playing with some fiber stuff (that eventually gets out as ESCON), and they are afraid if my HYPERChannel support is released to customers ... it would interfer with someday being able to get their fiber stuff out. As a result NSC has to re-do my implementation from scratch. Roll forward several years, the 3090 product administrator tracks me down. the 3090 channels were designed to have 3-5 channel checks annually aggregate across the whole customer base. the industry service that collects erep data shows that there have been an aggregate of 20 channel checks the first year. Turns out they are at customers running 3800 over HYERPChannel channel extender. In my original implementation ... if I had an unrecoverable transmission error ... I would simulate channel check in the CSW ... for the host software to go through its retry operation ... and the NSC faithfully reproduced that in their implementation. After some amount of toiling through error recovery code ... i determined that simulating IFCC would have effectively the same result as channel check and got NSC to update their implementation. as an aside, long ago and far away somebody in Boulder does build a hardware channel emulator for ibm/pc which is used for 3800 testing. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
