Re: Cobol vs Java - who is faster?
ITchak writes: Just to remind Timothy that IBM is not the only software supplier, 3rd parties and even IBM OTC does not take into account (at least, most of them) usage metrics. I wrote: First of all, general purpose engine upgrades don't increase software licensing charges unless you're talking about software licenses tied to machine capacity (i.e. full capacity licensing). No need to remind me. :-) Just to correct your assertion about IBM OTC, IBM's System z one-time charge software *does* take into account usage metrics (and, for that matter, software for other machines does, too). That's called Sub-Capacity IPLA (International Program License Agreement) software licensing, and IBM started offering it years ago. Here's some more information: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/resources/swprice/reference/exhibits/ipla.html With that bit of information about how to get additional software pricing efficiency out of the way, yes, software licensing is typically the largest part of the IT budget after payroll. (Look to your left, look to your right, look in the mirror... :-)) That's a good thing, and maybe if software were bigger than the IT payroll budget it would be even better. But that's also like saying the biggest part of an airline's operations budget is fuel. Well, sure, that's not surprising. And yes, maximizing the efficiency of that fuel is also a good thing. But stop loading fuel onto the airplanes? Great stuff, software. Good software solves business problems. Want to stop solving business problems and/or increase costs elsewhere? Cut off the fuel supply: software. Let's not get software pricing efficiency confused with business problem solving/business optimization. I'm a bigger picture person on this, and hopefully you've got a few in your organizations. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL vs. Java
I think Clark Morris is talking about the COBOL-based EGL run-time and the Enterprise COBOL compiler, not Language Environment. And sure, if you're not running EGL using the COBOL-based run-time option you don't need to license those two products But you would need to license something else, such as WebSphere Application Server, and with more capacity, some of which could be zAAP. How that comparison washes out is highly situational and varies, but isn't choice nice? IBM offers two options for running EGL on z/OS because both are excellent, and in different situations one or the other (or a combination of both) may be a better choice in your particular circumstances. Sit down with somebody familiar with the latest versions, your requirements, run at least some basic tests if you can, and develop two or three reasonably comprehensive business cases to compare those options. Some business cases favor the COBOL-based run-time, and some business cases favor the Java-based run-time. Choice is good! By the way, you can also run EGL on z/VSE: IBM offers a COBOL-based EGL run-time there, too. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL vs. Java
I recently heard a rumour at our site about IBM not recommending the use of java with DB2 on the mainframe Whoa, stop there. Did you ask your friend what drugs he's taking? :-) Once your friend sobers up, you might want to point him here: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/solutions/editions/ws/index.html That's the official IBM Web site for the System z Solution Edition for WebSphere. In that kit he'll find z/OS, DB2 for z/OS, and WebSphere Application Server for z/OS (and some nice tools). That kit is designed for one purpose only: to run Java with DB2 on the mainframe.(*) OK, I am officially declaring that, from now on, I am no longer responding to rumors, no matter how crazy, except if I have time to spare. (I rarely do.) Responding to rumors only encourages them, and if you believe everything you read in a forum then you should know that if you do not send me $10,000 immediately via Paypal your nose will turn into a pumpkin and remain that way for the rest of your life. You have been warned. (*) To be pedantic, there's no *requirement* that your Java application(s) access DB2. But most do. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect STG Value Creation Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Access to RACF entries dataset. Operation attribute
Barry Jorge, Barry, CREATE authority to a group will allow a user to create a dataset with an HLQ matching the group name even when the user is permitted less than ALTER access to the group's dataset profiles. CONNECT and JOIN authority will do the same since they include CREATE authority. OPERATIONS authority users have implicit CREATE authority in all groups. To prevent an OPERATIONS user from creating a group dataset, it is necessary to connect the OPERATIONS user to the group with USE authority in addition to permitting the user less than ALTER access to the dataset profile. Therefore, connecting T99CTM to MPRO02 was required. Jorge, I'm pleased to hear you got this sorted out. Do be aware that if you have other OPERATIONS users, they too will be able create and delete this dataset. To restrict OPERATIONS users, I usually create a group with a name something like NO#OPER, connect all the OPERATIONS users to it, and permit this group access of less than ALTER to resources I want them kept out of, especially catalogs, APF libraries, and DASDVOL profiles. If there are many OPERATIONS users, connecting them all to MPRO02 with USE authority might be a bit cumbersome; perhaps connecting T99CTM alone is sufficient for your purposes. Regards, Bob Robert S. Hansel Lead RACF Specialist 617-969-8211 www.linkedin.com/in/roberthansel RSH Consulting, Inc. www.rshconsulting.com - 2010 RACF Training Intro Basic Admin - Boston - OCT 5-7 Audit for Results - Boston - OCT 26-28 Visit our website for registration details - -Original Message- Date:Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:24:34 -0700 From:Schwarz, Barry A barry.a.schw...@boeing.com Subject: Re: Access to RACF entries dataset. Operation attribute There does not appear to be any reason to connect T99CTM to MPRO02. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jorge Garcia Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Access to RACF entries dataset. Operation attribute We've solved the problem. The main topics below: - Define a separate user catalog with alias with the special dataset (CAT.USUARIO.MIGHP). - Define in profile user catalog access list NONE to operation user (T99CTM). - Define a group (MPRO02) with a same HLQ of dataset - Define a profile dataset with the special dataset (MPRO02.AT00.P02.TCPRBD02.VSAM.NOVALE). T99CTM Access NONE. - Connect user T99CTM to group MPRO02. - Now, T99CTM could't delete or define dataset. It's operations yet. Walt give us the solution. So, if the HLQ for the data set is a group name, and the user doing the definition of the data set has CREATE in the group, he can create your data set. Your user with OPERATIONS has, by default, CREATE in all groups, and thus can define new data sets for any group where you have not explicitly connected him with less than CREATE authority. So, you might need to CONNECT him to the group with USE authority or lower. The key is Connected the USERID of an OPERATIONS user to the Group matching a dataset HLQ with USE authority ... It was difficult. Thanks a lot!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: EGL generation was Re: COBOL vs. Java
On 16 Jul 2010 19:21:48 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:17 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: using Java would allow elimination of the licenses for COBOL and runtimes COBOL runtime generally speaking is called Language Environment, right? It's pretty much a required component. Even if you have no shop-written COBOL, you may have vendor-written COBOL, PL/I, or C/C++. Charles You cannot get z/OS without LE. LE is a requirement for z/OS UNIX. z/OS UNIX is a requirement for IBM's TCP/IP stack. z/OS UNIX cannot not be run. The kernel comes up regardless. LE is bundled into the cost of z/OS. I THINK that some LE runtime components are COBOL specific and may be extra cost. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: EGL generation
Clark Morris wrote: | I THINK that some LE components are COBOL specific | and may be extra cost. He is half right. The LE does have some COBOL-specific run-time components, for COBOL-specific BIFs in particular, and many COBOL-specific entries in its common run-time components, but they are NOT extra cost. Indeed, there is nol longer a specific-to-it charge for the LE. You pay for it when you pay for z/OS. Lest this be misunderstood, I am not saying that there are no separate charges for the various translators, compile- or assembly-time processors. One of the rationales for the LE is that IBM or an ISV can write something in, say, C that any shop can use even if it is not itself a C user, i.e., a licensee of a C compiler. John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 2 versus 4 processors
Crispin Hugo wrote: Hi, We are hopefully going from a z9 to z10 processor. I would like to have 4 CP's instead of our current 2 CP's so our configuration is more flexible. We are not worried about licensing costs of multiple processors. The overall MIPage would be the same, whether we have 2 or 4 CP's We went from a three-way z9 to a four-way z10 and added a zIIP. We have a lot of LPARs including several z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE, and Linux for z. Performance overall seems more balanced and consistent and the extra CP comes in handy when setting up LPAR configurations. We offset some of the individual CP performance downgrade issues by upgrading our DASD to 2107, which runs circles around our old 2105. So, I/O-related processes run much faster than before. However, you can *definitely* tell that long CPU-bound processes, such as HLASM jobs, initializing dumps under IPCS, or mapping large modules in z/XDC, etc. take longer to complete. Our product code runs on zIIP, so it executes *really* fast compared to IBM code running on the CPs. We enabled the zAAP on zIIP feature and now Java code runs fast too, which really helped out TOMCAT and Websphere. YMMV. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: EGL generation was Re: COBOL vs. Java
I THINK that some LE runtime components are COBOL specific and may be extra cost. I don't believe that's the case. But, the last time I looked was 2005. - I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation! Kimota! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DFHSM, Control-O, and Top Secret issue
Bill It seems that the security in the rule is SEC=TRIGGER, you may have to change it to SEC=OWNER *Best Regards Doron Geva *Consulting Developing on z/OS system Mobile: +972-54-4974548 Mail: doron.geva...@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:48, Bill Johnson mellonb...@yahoo.com wrote: Control-O already has auth to perform all of the commands that we've been running for years. This is a new rule owned by contrlo but initiated by programmers when they need to recall a migrated dataset. It looks like the programmers ID owns the recall and Control-O can't cancel it. Until that is the security guy gave storage admin auth to the programmers. The reason for this need is a long story and goes away this Sunday. Thanks From: Rob Schramm rob.schr...@siriuscom.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 3:18:17 PM Subject: Re: DFHSM, Control-O, and Top Secret issue Bill, I am unsure why this would be surprising. If the security is setup, properly.. you can deny pretty much anything. TSS PER(control-o's acid) OPERCMDS(MVS.REPLY) ACC(READ) TSSUTIL security report should show the reason for the denial. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
IND$FILE question
I vaguely remember (A LONG TIME AGO mind you) that there was a separately installable FMID for IND$FILE (bonus points for the year it came out) Does anyone remember this? As a side question there was a separate help member in sys1.help (vague recollection here) Does(did?) IBM still ship the Help member for it? I seemed to remember that it was dropped along the way and it was never put back. Is this true? I just vaguely remember creating a usermod to add it back. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
