Re: Memlimit (yes, again ...) Was: Java Error
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of john gilmore > > In response to strictures from Shane Ginnane, Tom Grieve writes: > > > OK, that's fair enough, graceful failure with meaningful error > >messages is absolutely desirable. > > and I will venture the further comment that it is not just > "absolutely desirable" but essential. > > In the past I have suggested that concerns expressed by Shane > and others about the uses that were likely to be made of > above-the-bar storage were exaggerated. I supposed that > incompetents would find using it intimidating and avoid doing > so, at least for some time; and I was quite wrong. Indeed. Q: "Why do you climb the mountain?" A: "Because it is there." -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memlimit (yes, again ...) Was: Java Error
In response to strictures from Shane Ginnane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Grieve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: OK, that's fair enough, graceful failure with meaningful error messages is absolutely desirable. and I will venture the further comment that it is not just "absolutely desirable" but essential. In the past I have suggested that concerns expressed by Shane and others about the uses that were likely to be made of above-the-bar storage were exaggerated. I supposed that incompetents would find using it intimidating and avoid doing so, at least for some time; and I was quite wrong. John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA _ Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memlimit (yes, again ...) Was: Java Error
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:49:56 +1000, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:45 -0600, Tom Grieve wrote: > > snip... >31-bit being a subset of yes 64-bit, yes, I *absolutely* expect all >software to be capable of discerning the absence (or dearth) of storage >above the bar. >Where it causes a failure, fail gracefully. I am astounded that "java >-version" is incapable of being executed in a 31-bit address space. >I am not at all surprised that it produces no meaningful message. > >Shane ... OK, that's fair enough, graceful failure with meaningful error messages is absolutely desirable. Tom Grieve CICS Development IBM Hursley Park -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memlimit (yes, again ...) Was: Java Error
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:45 -0600, Tom Grieve wrote: > I'm not sure what you're saying here - what's the point of a 64-bit product > that doesn't use 64-bit storage? Do you think maybe it should check to see > if there's no 64-bit and use 31-bit instead? Why introduce such complexity > when there is a perfectly adequate 31-bit version of the same product > available? 31-bit being a subset of yes 64-bit, yes, I *absolutely* expect all software to be capable of discerning the absence (or dearth) of storage above the bar. Where it causes a failure, fail gracefully. I am astounded that "java -version" is incapable of being executed in a 31-bit address space. I am not at all surprised that it produces no meaningful message. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Memlimit (yes, again ...) Was: Java Error
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:14:15 +1000, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: > >> The jury is still out on what a good default to set is (I have >> mine set to 10G), but IMHO setting memlimit to anything less >> than 2G makes no sense. > >Seems a lot of people are in the process of the 1.4 - 1.7 "leap of >faith". Lots of things will start raising their heads - this being one. >On my testbed I (deliberately) have all the dodgy traps in place, and >memlimit zero. >Hence I know about the Java_64 issue. >For those taking the plunge this is probably a good time to heed Marks >advice. > >However, ... >it does exemplify the concerns I have expressed in the past. If the >architects of (z/OS) Java_64 were unable to conceive of a means of >making their product 64 bit capable without actually requiring storage >above the bar, how competent can we expect the users to be. I'm not sure what you're saying here - what's the point of a 64-bit product that doesn't use 64-bit storage? Do you think maybe it should check to see if there's no 64-bit and use 31-bit instead? Why introduce such complexity when there is a perfectly adequate 31-bit version of the same product available? Tom Grieve CICS Development IBM Hursley Park P.S. I posted a version of this earlier today via Outlook Express (it was Monday morning...), so apologies if you are seeing double. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
