Re: 21st Century Migrates Mainframe with Clerity

[DKM]

The key lines for me are

We had a number of duplicate systems, most notably around policy and quote 
administration, and there were two technical platforms, Unix-based and 
mainframe

and

The mainframe applications 21st Century was migrating mostly comprised batch 
programs that perform calculations and stat-reporting.

So it was hardley a major migration from what I can tell. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: One Less Mainframe Shop

[DKM]

The actual start of the migration off the mainframe started shortly after the 
current one was purchased.  It replaced two older systems was meant to be the 
last one. 

 
Still this was more than just a get off the mainframe push, this was a complete 
change in culture and philosophy.  Up until 1999 almost all software was 
homegrown and maintained.  Only the financial system was from an outside vendor 
and the reports from it were heavily customized.  The company wanted to shift 
from homegrown to vendor provided and in some cases even vendor hosted 
solutions.  There was no way this was going to be done quickly due to cost 
alone, but the 5 year plan took twice as long because not everything was 
looked. 

 
Still, top management placed a guy with an accounting background over IT.  In 
his view, shared by top management, the mainframe and its green screen was old 
out of date technology and the world was moving to Microsoft Windows.  They 
really did not want to hear or understand anything else.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

One Less Mainframe Shop

[DKM]

Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at 
my place of emplacement.  In my first interview, I was told how they were 
getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe.  After I 
was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be 
shutting down the mainframe in six months.  This shocked me a bit it was going 
to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
 
It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six 
months.  The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we 
went live on the new software and platform.  Well we did go live on the new ERP 
within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the 
company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it, 
there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running 
on it.
 
Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to 
the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week.  At some point after 
the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final 
switch to turn off the system.  He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to 
get 
us off the mainframe for almost 10 years.  I’m sure speeches will be made about 
how far we have come.  Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and 
virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside 
vendors, 
all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I 
can’t 
help but wonder if we are really better off.
 
DKM

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM-MAIN Digest - 17 Dec 2010 to 18 Dec 2010 (#2010-352)

[DKM]

From: IBM-MAIN automatic 






From: IBM-MAIN automatic digest system lists...@bama.ua.edu
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 11:00:03 PM
Subject: IBM-MAIN Digest - 17 Dec 2010 to 18 Dec 2010 (#2010-352)

There are 23 messages totalling 1034 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. DFSORT - Compare and report changed records from 2 huge files (6)
  2. AUTO: James Obrizok is out of the office on vacation but periodically
    checking email through the day. Returning Thursday December 16th. 
    (returning 12/20/2010)
  3. Connect:Direct Needed Enhancement (4)
  4. Off topic Friday - Why did I do this?
  5. z/os x z/os.e differences (2)
  6. ISPF Service in batch mode
  7. Batch program to update CVTUSER (2)
  8. SAS installation questions (2)
  9. Fw: ASG/Mobius
10. Why not STORAGE OBTAIN LOC=(31,64)?
11. determine runtime privilege level (prob/supr state, key) without TESTAUTH
12. PSP for z/os.e 1.8

--
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

--

Date:    Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:44:12 +0530
From:    adarsh khanna adarshkha...@yahoo.com
Subject: DFSORT - Compare and report changed records from 2 huge files

I have a situation where I need to report updated records from an =

Hi,=0A=0AI have a situation where I need to report updated records from an =
IMS database =0Aeveryday.=0AOn the first day, I run an IMS scan utility to =
report everything on the IMS DB =0A(around 30 million records).=0A=0AFrom s=
econd day onwards, I have to scan the IMS DB again and compare it with the =
=0Aprevious days file to report any updated records.=0A=0AOne solution is t=
o use VSAM i.e. store all the records (30 million) in a VSAM =0AKSDS file (=
in the initial run) and compare each record on it everyday with the =0Ascan=
ned file subsequently.=0A=0AI want to use DFSORT to compare and report only=
changed records.=0AMy question is will DFSORT solution offer any advantage=
to VSAM one?=0A=0AThanks in advance=0A=0AAdarsh Khanna=0A=0A

--
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

--

Date:    Sat, 18 Dec 2010 04:06:38 -0500
From:    James Obrizok obri...@us.ibm.com
Subject: AUTO: James Obrizok is out of the office on vacation but periodically 
checking email through the day. Returning Thursday December 16th.  (returning 
12/20/2010)

I am out of the office until 12/20/2010.

If you require immediate assistance, please contact my backup Fernando
Vega on 1-404-238-4580 or Jon Regitsky on 1-404-238-3134.  Thank you.


Note: This is an automated response to your message  IBM-MAIN Digest - 16
Dec 2010 to 17 Dec 2010 (#2010-351) sent on 12/18/10 0:00:04.

This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.

--
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

--

Date:    Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:43:25 -0600
From:    Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Connect:Direct Needed Enhancement

To avoid burning unnecessary CPU cycles, high frequency messages may be 
completely suppressed from even going to an automation product at the 
z/OS level via a PARMLIB member.  This suppression support is at the 
message ID (first word of the message) level, so a distinct msgid for 
messages of concern is required to take advantage of it.  We haven't 
done any comparison tests for a long time, but the savings from 
automation suppression with Netview were noticeable when we first 
started using it.  Products should use message ID conventions with this 
in mind.
  Joel C Ewing

On 12/17/2010 12:26 PM, Ron Hawkins wrote:
 Jim,

 Not that I have written much automation code, but wouldn't it be simpler
 just to check for the characters COMP in the positions 1-4 of the message
 text, and then branch your automation code accordingly? There's nothing
 terribly inefficient in that.

 Ron

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
 Behalf Of
 Jim Marshall
 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:09 AM
 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
 Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Connect:Direct Needed Enhancement

 Need some assistance from those running Connect:Direct for z/OS from
 Sterling Commerce (who is now IBM).  The way C:D reports the