How about a weekly (or daily) scheduled download for the users to do ad hoc queries?
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:25 AM, John McKown <john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Timothy Sipples <sipp...@sg.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Also curious about the "It also gives our end users the idea that z/OS is >> incapable of easy to use data access" remark, John. >> >> If you're a keen or semi-keen observer of the IT world, relational >> databases are extremely popular and continuing to be popular, but >> non-relational databases (and data stores) are enjoying a robust >> renaissance. One size does not fit all. >> > > True. In a sense, VSAM KSDS could be touted as a basic NoSQL data store. > > >> >> I think it's always a good idea to take a look at the full range of >> VSAM-related options: SYSB-II, VSAM Record-Level Sharing (RLS), and >> Transactional VSAM (TVS). And, to anticipate a question, no, you do NOT >> need multiple machines for either VSAM RLS or TVS. You don't even need more >> than one z/OS LPAR -- a monoplex is sufficient. You do need to define and >> to start a CFCC LPAR (or z/VM equivalent if applicable) if you don't have >> one already -- otherwise known as a configuration task, and all approaches >> require configuration tasks. That CFCC LPAR can either use (part of) a >> general purpose engine or a CF engine, and it needs a bit of memory >> allocated. The fact CFCC-related processing can run on a CF engine is a >> good, very zIIP-like option to have available because all these approaches >> incur some overhead. Whether it makes business sense to get a CF engine or >> not depends on how much CFCC-related processing you'll have. Often yes it >> does, but not always. The processing may grow with time as you use RLS or >> TVS more (and/or use your CF for other things) -- yes, new functions often >> get used and enjoyed -- so that decision can change over time, too. >> >> > We don't have a CF. Therefore we don't have the ability to run VSAM TVS. In > any case, VSAM TVS does not help end user access like, say, DB2 would. I.e. > TVS won't allow a faster response when a user asks a question. > > We own our z9BC. And the company really wants to eliminate z/OS and the z > entirely. They want a Windows monoculture because it is easier to manage. > So they simply refuse to do anything which costs money on z/OS, preferring > to use the small budget we have on Windows. > > Oh, and we just lost the CIO who was more of a business person. He liked > z/OS and CICS because he never heard complaints about it being down, as he > had for Windows servers. > > -- > Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of > everything and the Wirth of nothing? > > Maranatha! <>< > John McKown > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
