Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
In fkjpr71k9aqo209gi143h9g9hnuq125...@4ax.com, on 05/23/2012 at 08:54 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it Shorthand? How is 24/7/365 shorter than 24/7? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In fkjpr71k9aqo209gi143h9g9hnuq125...@4ax.com, on 05/23/2012 at 08:54 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it Shorthand? How is 24/7/365 shorter than 24/7? It's not. But it's shorter (or at least easier to remember/type/understand for most people) than 86400/365 or 31536000. And he didn't say shorthand, he said shortcut. Are we done now? -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com wrote in message news:CAFO-8tqWyJKz+G7jJXvgooJ7QinzBAo=rw0+ywebrx8_jbv...@mail.gmail.com ... On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In fkjpr71k9aqo209gi143h9g9hnuq125...@4ax.com, on 05/23/2012 at 08:54 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it Shorthand? How is 24/7/365 shorter than 24/7? It's not. But it's shorter (or at least easier to remember/type/understand for most people) than 86400/365 or 31536000. And he didn't say shorthand, he said shortcut. Are we done now? -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it I would like to suggest the 24/7/52 variation. It is shorter than 24/7/365 and is easier realizable in 1 year. Kees. For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
Read it again. He did say both shortcut and shorthand Bill Fairchild Programmer Rocket Software 408 Chamberlain Park Lane * Franklin, TN 37069-2526 * USA t: +1.617.614.4503 * e: bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com * w: www.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:31 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012 On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In fkjpr71k9aqo209gi143h9g9hnuq125...@4ax.com, on 05/23/2012 at 08:54 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it Shorthand? How is 24/7/365 shorter than 24/7? It's not. But it's shorter (or at least easier to remember/type/understand for most people) than 86400/365 or 31536000. And he didn't say shorthand, he said shortcut. Are we done now? -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
In actuality, isn't 24x7 comprehensive enough? The 24 infers that the availability is round the clock, as opposed to most operating schedules that embrace a single day shift of 8 hours (banker's hours), or a day of 14 or 16 hours. The 7 infers that availability is every day of the week, as opposed to only 5 days or 6 days as posited by many businesses. Beyond these, there is no de rigueur schedule of weeks within a year, or even days within a year that is consistently embraced across all cutures and peoples. Consequently, there is no need to stress availability for 52 or 52.(fraction) weeks and no need to stress 365 day availability. Neither of these adds clarity beyond what 24x7 or 24/7 or whatever representation you give to every hour, every day. Billy On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote: On 22 May 2012 20:04:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: In hj3lr7lassfuf88ovoeg000i1pp935e...@4ax.com, on 05/21/2012 at 03:51 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: I'm the last to see my own errors. Hopefully it was obvious I meant 24/7/365 That's no better. Either 24/7/52 or 24/365 would be approximately correct. On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it and is it the way that the general public as opposed to us professional nitpickers best understands it? Clark Morris -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Thank you and best regards, *Billy Ashton* -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
YES enough said!!! Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Bill Ashton bill00ash...@gmail.com Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:30:11 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Reply-to: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012 In actuality, isn't 24x7 comprehensive enough? The 24 infers that the availability is round the clock, as opposed to most operating schedules that embrace a single day shift of 8 hours (banker's hours), or a day of 14 or 16 hours. The 7 infers that availability is every day of the week, as opposed to only 5 days or 6 days as posited by many businesses. Beyond these, there is no de rigueur schedule of weeks within a year, or even days within a year that is consistently embraced across all cutures and peoples. Consequently, there is no need to stress availability for 52 or 52.(fraction) weeks and no need to stress 365 day availability. Neither of these adds clarity beyond what 24x7 or 24/7 or whatever representation you give to every hour, every day. Billy On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote: On 22 May 2012 20:04:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: In hj3lr7lassfuf88ovoeg000i1pp935e...@4ax.com, on 05/21/2012 at 03:51 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: I'm the last to see my own errors. Hopefully it was obvious I meant 24/7/365 That's no better. Either 24/7/52 or 24/365 would be approximately correct. On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it and is it the way that the general public as opposed to us professional nitpickers best understands it? Clark Morris -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Thank you and best regards, *Billy Ashton* -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca (Clark Morris) writes: On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it and is it the way that the general public as opposed to us professional nitpickers best understands it? when we were doing ha/cmp in the early 90s, one of the customers we called on supported the 1-800 lookup (i.e. 1-800 got routed to dbms transaction that looked up the real number for putting the call through) had five-nines availability. the incumbent had redundant hardware ... but required system to be taken down for software maintenance ... short scheduled downtime, once a year blew the outage budget for a nearly a century. ha/cmp didn't have redundant hardware components but had replicated systems and fall-over ... so failures downtime was masked ... even rolling outages for software system maintenance w/o service impact. eventually the incumbent vendor came back and said that they could do replicated systems also ... for masking individual system downtime ... but that negated the requirement for redudant sofware. i was then asked to write a section for the corporae continuous available strategy document ... but the section got pulled after both Rochester and POK complained that they couldn't meet the objectives. past posts mentioning coining the terms disaster survivability and geographic survivability ... to differentiate from disaster/recovery when out marketing ha/cmp: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#available -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
And the general public, many Dilbertian managers, and even some of us professional nitpickers, think that a job running 1 hour instead of 10 is 900% faster, and that 1 is 10 times smaller than 10. 2+2 no longer = 5; now it equals chartreuse. Fortunately architects and engineers know how to use mathematically accurate and precise terminology when describing the bridges they design and build, or we would have a lot more cars falling off of collapsing bridges. Bill Fairchild Programmer Rocket Software 408 Chamberlain Park Lane * Franklin, TN 37069-2526 * USA t: +1.617.614.4503 * e: bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com * w: www.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012 On 22 May 2012 20:04:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: In hj3lr7lassfuf88ovoeg000i1pp935e...@4ax.com, on 05/21/2012 at 03:51 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: I'm the last to see my own errors. Hopefully it was obvious I meant 24/7/365 That's no better. Either 24/7/52 or 24/365 would be approximately correct. On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it and is it the way that the general public as opposed to us professional nitpickers best understands it? Clark Morris -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com (Bill Fairchild) writes: And the general public, many Dilbertian managers, and even some of us professional nitpickers, think that a job running 1 hour instead of 10 is 900% faster, and that 1 is 10 times smaller than 10. 2+2 no longer = 5; now it equals chartreuse. Fortunately architects and engineers know how to use mathematically accurate and precise terminology when describing the bridges they design and build, or we would have a lot more cars falling off of collapsing bridges. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#29 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012 Volcker in discussion with civil engineering professor about significantly decline in infrastructure projects (as institutions skimmed funds for other purposes disappearing civil engineering jobs) resulting in universities cutting back civil engineering programs; Confidence Men, pg290: Well, I said, 'The trouble with the United States recently is we spent several decades not producing many civil engineers and producing a huge number of financial engineers. And the result is s**tty bridges and a s**tty financial system! ... snip ... old presentation by Jim Gray on availability ... scanned from paper copy that had been made on copying machine in bldg. 28, SJR http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/grayft84.pdf the point (from early 80s) was that majority of outages (scheduled and non-scheduled) had shifted from hardware to software (and human errors). (early 70s) before virtual memory announcement for 370, a copy of internal document describing the technology leaked to the press. in the wake of the following investigation, all internal copying machines were retrofitted with unique identifier (under the glass) that would appear on all copies made on that machine. for other drift ... it has been five years since Jim disappeared and cal. court recently declared him dead ... reference in (linkedin) z/VM group: http://lnkd.in/C2yn7p also archived here: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#21 Closure in Disappearance of Computer Scientist -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Bill Fairchild bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com wrote: And the general public, many Dilbertian managers, and even some of us professional nitpickers, think that a job running 1 hour instead of 10 is 900% faster, and that 1 is 10 times smaller than 10. 2+2 no longer = 5; now it equals chartreuse. Fortunately architects and engineers know how to use mathematically accurate and precise terminology when describing the bridges they design and build, or we would have a lot more cars falling off of collapsing bridges. Bill Fairchild http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures -- 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...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:20:03 +, Bill Fairchild wrote: And the general public, many Dilbertian managers, and even some of us professional nitpickers, think that a job running 1 hour instead of 10 is 900% faster, I believe that's correct usage, even as an airplane that flies from New York to Washington in one hour is 900% faster than a car that makes the trip in 10 hours. and that 1 is 10 times smaller than 10. And that's confusing or nonsensical. But see: e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness#Marked_and_unmarked_word_pairs http://www.springerlink.com/content/u15776721t318p8u/ Does 24/7 sometimes presume an exception for national holidays? Why is it 24/7 rather than 24x7? And why do markets display prices such as 3/$1.00 rather than $1.00/3? Is chartreuse about 50% greener than olive? Now, can we get back to our charter of discussing the appropriate use of TLAs? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
IMHO everyone here perfectly understand common (and intended) meaning of 24/7/365. While is formally inaccurate, it's still clear. The rest is as worth to discuss as USS=Unix System Services. Maybe there is official IBM meaning* of 24/7/365 or the only proper description of continuous availability ? vbg My €0.02 -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 2012-05-23 16:20, Bill Fairchild pisze: And the general public, many Dilbertian managers, and even some of us professional nitpickers, think that a job running 1 hour instead of 10 is 900% faster, and that 1 is 10 times smaller than 10. 2+2 no longer = 5; now it equals chartreuse. Fortunately architects and engineers know how to use mathematically accurate and precise terminology when describing the bridges they design and build, or we would have a lot more cars falling off of collapsing bridges. Bill Fairchild Programmer Rocket Software 408 Chamberlain Park Lane * Franklin, TN 37069-2526 * USA t: +1.617.614.4503 * e: bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com * w: www.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012 On 22 May 2012 20:04:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Inhj3lr7lassfuf88ovoeg000i1pp935e...@4ax.com, on 05/21/2012 at 03:51 PM, Clark Morriscfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: I'm the last to see my own errors. Hopefully it was obvious I meant 24/7/365 That's no better. Either 24/7/52 or 24/365 would be approximately correct. On a logical basis I agree with you but has the 24/7/365 shortcut for continuous availability become so pervasive that it is the shorthand way for saying it and is it the way that the general public as opposed to us professional nitpickers best understands it? Clark Morris -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Tre tej wiadomoci moe zawiera informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznaczone wycznie do uytku subowego adresata. Odbiorc moe by jedynie jej adresat z wyczeniem dostpu osób trzecich. Jeeli nie jeste adresatem niniejszej wiadomoci lub pracownikiem upowanionym do jej przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, e jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie lub inne dziaanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i moe by karalne. Jeeli otrzymae t wiadomo omykowo, prosimy niezwocznie zawiadomi nadawc wysyajc odpowied oraz trwale usun t wiadomo wczajc w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku. This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorised to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive. BRE Bank SA, 00-950 Warszawa, ul. Senatorska 18, tel. +48 (22) 829 00 00, fax +48 (22) 829 00 33, www.brebank.pl, e-mail: i...@brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2012 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci wpacony) wynosi 168.410.984 zotych. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
