Mainframe Systems Programmer Position (z/Linux z/VM z/OS)
All, HDS have position vacant here in Santa Clara for a z/VM and Linux on Z Series sysprog. I've included the link to the HDS jobs page below. Darren has vetted and approved posting this on the Listserv. The link below won't take you directly to that specific job. This is the HDS Careers page. http://www.hds.com/corporate/careers/job-search/?_p=v Once there enter Mainframe in the keyword search field. Once you enter the search, scroll down to the position headed Mainframe Systems Programmer (z/Linux z/VM z/OS)-002349. Thanks for your interest. Ron -- 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
Webcast Wed. Jan 26: Best Practices for WebSphere Application Server on System z Linux
Cross-posted to IBMVM, IBMMAIN, and Linux390 for those who are interested in listening to IBM webcasts. The next webcast is planned for Wed, Jan 26, 2011: Title: Best Practices for WebSphere Application Server on System z Linux http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc/ Speaker: Steve Wehr, Senior Engineer, IBM System z New Technology Center Abstract: An introduction to setting up an infrastructure that will allow WebSphere applications to run efficiently on Linux for System z. This infrastructure consists of LPARs running VM, running multiple Linux guests, each running WebSphere, running your applications. That's a lot of layers, where everything has to work together well. This presentation tells you how to start setting up such an architecture, how to make these parts work together optimally, and how to allocate memory between all the systems involved. Register for your choice of two times for the live call: http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc/ A replay for this webcast is planned to be available in the days following the live call. Questions about this webcast should be directed to Julie Liesenfelt. jul...@us.ibm.com Thanks. Regards, Pam C -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:26:44 -0500, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: SNIPPAGE But again if running under VM, VM has the ability to prevent your access to the target volumes by reason of IEF, does it not? Sure, but no more than LPAR I/O config. Exception: You can give a guest R/O access to the volume - LPAR can't do that. Of course, that doesn't help you *repair* it unless you want to clone it and repair the clone, leaving the original untouched. I don't know what IEF means. SNIPPAGE Interpretive Execution Facility -- the owner (or was) of SIE Regards, Steve Thompson -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:55:55 -0500, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: Interpretive Execution Facility -- the owner (or was) of SIE Duh. :-) Not directly, no. When a guest does SSCH or DIAGNOSE instruction, there is a SIE intercept: (a) All device addresses/subchannel ids are virtual. Guests can only do I/O to devices in their virtual I/O configuration, (b) CP prepends a DEFINE EXTENT CCW to any disk I/O in order to electrify the fence so that guests don't wander outside their enclosure. (c) CP rejects CCWs that could mess things up for all users (usu. control unit settings) unless special authorization is given Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:26:44 -0500, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: I think we are talking about two different issues. Entirely possible. My apologies if I've misunderstood. Now, if you were to do this with a running system (z/Linux for instance), I'd think that the auditors and security people should be able to use piano wire or whatever. I'll go with whatever. Piano wire would be too quick. But again if running under VM, VM has the ability to prevent your access to the target volumes by reason of IEF, does it not? Sure, but no more than LPAR I/O config. Exception: You can give a guest R/O access to the volume - LPAR can't do that. Of course, that doesn't help you *repair* it unless you want to clone it and repair the clone, leaving the original untouched. I don't know what IEF means. Alan Altmark IBM -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
Hi You have interesting ideas, here I don't agree as with the REXX SPOOL interface and the HTTP server , small REXX exec's can serve any kind of browser with SPOOL data. With SAPI or the batch SDSF, it was not simple, but with REXX and SDSF it is easy , and it would be better to let the MVS make security checks, SPOOL access etc etc . McKown, John wrote: This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- 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 -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards, Miklos SZIGETVARI Research and Development ISIS Information Systems GmbH Alter Wienerweg 12, A-2344 Maria Enzersdorf, Austria T: +43 - 2236 – 27551, F: +43 - 2236 - 21081 @ miklos.szigetv...@isis-papyrus.com Visit our brand new extended Website at www.isis-papyrus.com This e-mail is only intended for the recipient and not legally binding. Unauthorised use, publication, reproduction or disclosure of the content of this e-mail is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for known viruses, but ISIS accepts no responsibility for malicious or inappropriate content. -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 12:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:59:41 -0500, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: Yes this raises security issues. But you have physical access in this case. If these things are only given to the root or a special user w/in the *nix environment, you have addressed much of the security issues. If you are running under VM, and VM is giving you access to the physical addresses, then the security is controlled by VM. Not. The problem is that the z/OS audit trail will not contain any record that user STEVE accessed the spool and z/OS access rules will not be applied to the datasets on the volume. SNIP I think we are talking about two different issues. In a D/R situation, where you have killed your running system, and somehow your 1 pack emergency system won't IPL (since it takes at least 2 volumes for SYSRES now), you can fix things if you have a standalone system. [OR, you are at the D/R site and need to make some change to get the system to IPL...] I have used such a system that is booted from the HMC's CD unit. And the editor that I used was a royal pain, because it had to write back to the block it read from. If you have more of a system to do that kind of work with, then recovering a wrecked JES2PARM or PARMLIB element/member becomes much easier. And in this case of the standalone editor, there were no directory entry updates made, no SMF data, etc. etc. -- Aside: do I need to get into spool at this point? I dunno, I guess it would depend on if there was something there that would tell me what I need to know to fix this system so it can IPL -- Now, if you were to do this with a running system (z/Linux for instance), I'd think that the auditors and security people should be able to use piano wire or whatever. But again if running under VM, VM has the ability to prevent your access to the target volumes by reason of IEF, does it not? This is what gives the last line of defense, such that it is. Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by this poster may not reflect poster's employer's opinions -- -- 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
Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:13 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. Which SPOOL do you want to see? JES? VM? -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
John, SDSF uses the SSI and Spool browse facility (allocation of subsystem datasets). I don't see either of these running on z/Linux with shared DASD easily. What about FTP or SSH SFTP from Linux to z/OS for spool access? FWIW, we recently added some support for spool status and file access in Co:Z SFTP, which is accessible securely from zLinux (or any system with ssh connectivity to z/OS. See: http://dovetail.com/docs/sftp/using.html#server_jes Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:13 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- 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
Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
On 02/25/2010 09:13 AM, McKown, John wrote: This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com In addition to zMan's quandry, I'll add z/VSE, zTPF (which I'll assume also has some sort of spool). You bring up security, that would be big. But maybe another question, why SDSF? Why not VM:Spool? Even bigger... who would write/port it? Is there really a need to see someone elses spool data from Linux? z/VSE provides a cool tool called the Navigator which allows a user to see the spool on a Linux system, but that's more of a desktop tool. -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:28 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux John, SDSF uses the SSI and Spool browse facility (allocation of subsystem datasets). I don't see either of these running on z/Linux with shared DASD easily. What about FTP or SSH SFTP from Linux to z/OS for spool access? FWIW, we recently added some support for spool status and file access in Co:Z SFTP, which is accessible securely from zLinux (or any system with ssh connectivity to z/OS. See: http://dovetail.com/docs/sftp/using.html#server_jes Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com OK, I must be misremembering. Or maybe that was a much older version. Or, maybe, it was the old Q command. Basically my curiousity was to be able to at least review SPOOL datasets (perhaps copying them) directly on z/Linux to avoid any sort of CPU cost on the z/OS system. Well, if I even had z/Linux, which I don't. I just sometimes ask off-the-wall curiousity questions. Management here is on a major quest to decrease z/OS CPU usage to save money. Too bad they don't look at all the elided software we have from MS which could possibly be replaced with FOSS products. Especially OpenOffice vs. MS Office. Or Oracle with EnterpriseDB. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:13 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. Which SPOOL do you want to see? JES? VM? The z/OS JES spool. But it might be interesting to have similar for VM:Spool, normal VM SPOOL, z/VSE, and others. But that's getting futher afield. Like being able to read z/OS legacy (PS and PDS) datasets directly. Again, to avoid any CPU use in z/OS itself. But security is still an issue on all of these accesses. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux SNIPPAGE The z/OS JES spool. But it might be interesting to have similar for VM:Spool, normal VM SPOOL, z/VSE, and others. But that's getting futher afield. Like being able to read z/OS legacy (PS and PDS) datasets directly. Again, to avoid any CPU use in z/OS itself. But security is still an issue on all of these accesses. SNIPPAGE This is similar to using a Linux Live CD to diagnose and fix a Windows system (even if it is running NTFS). The Linux system could be used for D/R purposes to diagnose or fix the non-running system. Yes this raises security issues. But you have physical access in this case. If these things are only given to the root or a special user w/in the *nix environment, you have addressed much of the security issues. If you are running under VM, and VM is giving you access to the physical addresses, then the security is controlled by VM. Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by this poster may not reflect those of poster's employer -- -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
So long as crazed ideas are on the table, how about putting key MVS I/O subsystems in VM and providing diagnose interfaces to them from guests? Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux SNIPPAGE The z/OS JES spool. But it might be interesting to have similar for VM:Spool, normal VM SPOOL, z/VSE, and others. But that's getting futher afield. Like being able to read z/OS legacy (PS and PDS) datasets directly. Again, to avoid any CPU use in z/OS itself. But security is still an issue on all of these accesses. SNIPPAGE This is similar to using a Linux Live CD to diagnose and fix a Windows system (even if it is running NTFS). The Linux system could be used for D/R purposes to diagnose or fix the non-running system. Yes this raises security issues. But you have physical access in this case. If these things are only given to the root or a special user w/in the *nix environment, you have addressed much of the security issues. If you are running under VM, and VM is giving you access to the physical addresses, then the security is controlled by VM. Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by this poster may not reflect those of poster's employer -- -- 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
Re: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) writes: This just occurred to me. I wonder if I'm suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. But, as best as I can tell, SDSF is capable of accessing the SPOOL files for a non-active JES2 system. At least as I recall from the past, I did this. So I got to wondering. Suppose I have a z/Linux system running in the same complex. Perhaps under z/VM. It might be nice (FSVO nice), if I could logon to z/Linux and do SDSF ad least to the extent of being able to read SPOOL files. Of course, being a bit paranoid, I would only allow a READONLY access to the DASD containing the SPOOL data. And there is always the specter of security. There may be SPOOL files which I should not be able to even READ (like payroll or HIPAA reports or ...). So this may be a stupid idea. But the though is intriguing to me. there had been significant enhancement of cms os/simulation ... including handling pretty much all (both r/o and r/w) os formated disks files (the cms os/simulation had been less than 64kbytes of code ... but there were comments that it was really cost-effective compared to the size of the MVS os/simulation). However, this was before the shutdown of the vm370 group and their move to POK to support mvs/xa development (person left the company and remained in the boston area) ... and the enhancements appeared to evaporate. A couple years later I was getting heavily involved in redoing assembler implementations in more appropriate languages ... recent reference to doing DUMPRX in rexx http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#10 Need tool to zap core I also redid a spool file system implementation in pascal running in virtual machine. The los gatos lab had done the original mainframe pascal implementation for vlsi tool implementation ... that pascal went thru several product releases started with IUP before evolving into program product. That pascal was also used to implement the original mainframe tcp/ip product (and suffered from none of the buffer length exploits that are common in C language implementations). recent reference to that tcp/ip implementation: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#72 LPARs: More or Less? My full (spool file system) implementation moved the complete system spool file implementation into virtual address space ... however, I packaged subset of the routines as independent utilities for doing spool file diagnostic (on normal systems). It is actually relatively straight-forward activity. Total aside, part of the issue was that the internal networking technology ran thru the spool system (implemented as a service virtual machine, or virtual appliance) ... and for various implementation reasons would only get 20kbytes-40kbytes/sec sustained thruput (before controller caches, etc). In HSDT, some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt I needed multi-megabyte sustained thruput ... so was having to add all sorts of things like lazy writes, contiguation allocation, multi-buffering, read-ahead, etc (however, lazy writes still required logged operation ... either they completed or had to be redone) ... total aside, some of this sort of thing recently shows up in enhancements for ext4 filesystem ... minor reference to google upgrading to ext4: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/01/google-upgrading-to-ext4-hires-former-linux-foundation-cto.ars HSDT was also having some vendors, on the other side of the pacific, build some hardware. The friday afternoon before a vendor visit trip, the communicationg group distributes an announcement for a new high-speed discussion group in an internal forum ... with the following definitions: low-speed 9.6kbits medium-speed19.2kbits high-speed 56kbits very high-speed 1.5mbits monday morning in vendor conference room on the other side of the pacific: low-speed 20mbits medium-speed100mbits high-speed 200-300mbits very high-speed 600mbits -- 42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:59:41 -0500, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: Yes this raises security issues. But you have physical access in this case. If these things are only given to the root or a special user w/in the *nix environment, you have addressed much of the security issues. If you are running under VM, and VM is giving you access to the physical addresses, then the security is controlled by VM. Not. The problem is that the z/OS audit trail will not contain any record that user STEVE accessed the spool and z/OS access rules will not be applied to the datasets on the volume. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott, NY -- 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: Crazed idea: SDSF for z/Linux
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:16:54 -0600, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote: So long as crazed ideas are on the table, how about putting key MVS I/O subsystems in VM and providing diagnose interfaces to them from guests? If the spool is kept in datasets, CMS may already be able to read them. Alan Altmark z/VM Development -- 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
Oracle on z/OS [was: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux]
On 1 Sep 2009 22:51:02 -0700, ds...@hotmail.com (Dave Salt) wrote: A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Just to clarify any confusion that might result here, Oracle will be supporting the current 10.2 release of its z/OS product (including Access Managers for CICS and IMS) _indefinitely_, including testing with new releases of z/OS, CICS, IMS, and of the Oracle database (running on other platforms, such as z/Linux). Customers with questions about this should contact Barry Perkins, VP Oracle Modernization Oracle Integrated Solutions, at 650 506 2747 or email barry.perk...@oracle.com. Barry has been involved in Oracle's MVS products for many years and understands the issues involved. /b -- 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: Oracle on z/OS [was: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux]
Hi Bill, Thanks for the info. I understand that OAM will continue to be supported, but not enhanced. If a new feature of the Oracle database requires an update to the OAM, it means applications running on z/OS would not be able to use the new Oracle feature. Is that correct? If so, it's hard to imagine that any company using z/OS would consider using Oracle as the database. Oracle obviously knows this, so in essence it seems they've given up on the z/OS platform. Would you agree with this? Out of curiosity, can you shed any light on why this decision was made; e.g. economical, political, technical, etc? Thanks, Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:20:43 -0700 From: bill.ma...@oracle.com Subject: Oracle on z/OS [was: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux] To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu On 1 Sep 2009 22:51:02 -0700, ds...@hotmail.com (Dave Salt) wrote: A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Just to clarify any confusion that might result here, Oracle will be supporting the current 10.2 release of its z/OS product (including Access Managers for CICS and IMS) _indefinitely_, including testing with new releases of z/OS, CICS, IMS, and of the Oracle database (running on other platforms, such as z/Linux). Customers with questions about this should contact Barry Perkins, VP Oracle Modernization Oracle Integrated Solutions, at 650 506 2747 or email barry.perk...@oracle.com. Barry has been involved in Oracle's MVS products for many years and understands the issues involved. /b -- 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 _ New: Messenger sign-in on the MSN homepage http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9677403 -- 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: Oracle on z/OS [was: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux]
On 8 Sep 2009 12:37:11 -0700, ds...@hotmail.com (Dave Salt) wrote: Hi Bill, Thanks for the info. I understand that OAM will continue to be supported, but not enhanced. If a new feature of the Oracle database requires an update to the OAM, it means applications running on z/OS would not be able to use the new Oracle feature. Is that correct? If so, it's hard to imagine that any company using z/OS would consider using Oracle as the database. Oracle obviously knows this, so in essence it seems they've given up on the z/OS platform. Would you agree with this? Out of curiosity, can you shed any light on why this decision was made; e.g. economical, political, technical, etc? Dave (and IBM-Main), The first point is true only for Oracle database features that involve client API and/or precompiler changes. The majority of new database features do not involve such changes i.e. they are available via existing SQL and PL/SQL execution mechanisms. It's probably inappropriate for me (a developer) to suggest the reasons for realigning our database strategy on z/OS. Barry would be the person to ask...drop him a note. I definitely think giving up on the platform is not quite right. Regards, /b -- 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: Oracle on z/OS [was: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux]
I may be misremembering, but when we talked to Oracle about what would and would not be supported I seem to recall that there was no guaruntee that Oracle would support even connecting the z/OS Oracle 10.2 client to more than one version up. In other words, connecting to a version 11 server is supported, but connecting to a version 12 server (whenever that is released) may or may not be supported. Does this sound correct? If so, this means that any Oracle server supporting z/OS clients could not be upgraded beyond version 11. Not a desirable situation, I think. Personally I think a good compromise would be for Oracle to stabilize only the server code, but to keep up with client code (including the batch and online Access Manager components). Unfortunately Oracle appears to have ruled that out... Frank On 9/8/2009 at 3:49 PM, in message 4aa6d14e.7000...@oracle.com, Bill Manry bill.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On 8 Sep 2009 12:37:11 -0700, ds...@hotmail.com (Dave Salt) wrote: Hi Bill, Thanks for the info. I understand that OAM will continue to be supported, but not enhanced. If a new feature of the Oracle database requires an update to the OAM, it means applications running on z/OS would not be able to use the new Oracle feature. Is that correct? If so, it's hard to imagine that any company using z/OS would consider using Oracle as the database. Oracle obviously knows this, so in essence it seems they've given up on the z/OS platform. Would you agree with this? Out of curiosity, can you shed any light on why this decision was made; e.g. economical, political, technical, etc? Dave (and IBM-Main), The first point is true only for Oracle database features that involve client API and/or precompiler changes. The majority of new database features do not involve such changes i.e. they are available via existing SQL and PL/SQL execution mechanisms. It's probably inappropriate for me (a developer) to suggest the reasons for realigning our database strategy on z/OS. Barry would be the person to ask...drop him a note. I definitely think giving up on the platform is not quite right. Regards, /b -- 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 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Yes, in many situations there is an increased wire length. In many situations it's unavoidable. But if the goal is to reduce costs, it's very important to take proximity into account. If you cut your DB2 license fee by 30% but triple your CICS and z/OS license fees, most rational people wouldn't take that trade. If you cut your DB2 license fee by 30% but increase your CICS and z/OS license fee by 10%, then more investigation may be merited. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Dave, Probably all companies (mine included) have the goal to reduce costs, made more urgent in the present economic conditions. So that makes sense. I don't know if your friend's company is located in my part of the world (Asia), but if so he should feel free to contact me offline. If he's elsewhere I can probably provide a referral, if that's helpful. It's rare that I don't find some reasonable cost-reducing options. My only condition is that I get a shot at looking at the total business picture (or at least closer to that), because the more I have to work with the more (and more useful) ideas I can suggest. Said another way, if someone says to me, Make my mainframe cheaper, well, that's easy: unplug it and sell it on eBay. Presumably that isn't going to be a very successful business strategy, however. As another example, my company might figure out a way to cut the paper budget to zero, whereupon none of the salespeople can write or execute contracts. Or cut the telephone budget to zero, whereupon nobody can talk with any (quickly former) customers. The business context is important to understand, and I'm much more useful (and helpful) when the question is, How can I make my business run more efficiently? And if part of the answer to that question is, Don't run (x) on (y), I'll say so. I think most of their programs are written in COBOL, with perhaps a, few written in Assembler, all running on z/OS. I know they use some stored procedures, but I don't know how many or what for. I'd guesstimate they have about 100 developers if that gives you some idea of size. OK, that's a good feel. I assume it's a reasonably generous mix of OLTP and batch as well. Assuming there's a magic wand that could be waved that would (with zero cost/risk/time) allow these applications to run with another database, one technical question I would look at carefully would be the forecasted CPU increase, particularly on the application side. The present connections between those applications and the database is intra-LPAR I assume, and presumably that's reasonably well optimized. As you stretch the wire length between those two tiers it'll tend to increase CPU on both sides, other things being equal. So I'd want to find out how much that proximity effect is. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Hi Timothy, My friend is in North America, but I'll pass your message on to him so he can pass it on to his management. I agree with you about stretching the wire length, and it would certainly be a concern if it were me making the decision. Not just because of the increase in time, but also the possible points of failure. But, my friends management doesn't seem to have the same concern. Thanks again, Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:59:25 +0900 From: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Dave, Probably all companies (mine included) have the goal to reduce costs, made more urgent in the present economic conditions. So that makes sense. I don't know if your friend's company is located in my part of the world (Asia), but if so he should feel free to contact me offline. If he's elsewhere I can probably provide a referral, if that's helpful. It's rare that I don't find some reasonable cost-reducing options. My only condition is that I get a shot at looking at the total business picture (or at least closer to that), because the more I have to work with the more (and more useful) ideas I can suggest. Said another way, if someone says to me, Make my mainframe cheaper, well, that's easy: unplug it and sell it on eBay. Presumably that isn't going to be a very successful business strategy, however. As another example, my company might figure out a way to cut the paper budget to zero, whereupon none of the salespeople can write or execute contracts. Or cut the telephone budget to zero, whereupon nobody can talk with any (quickly former) customers. The business context is important to understand, and I'm much more useful (and helpful) when the question is, How can I make my business run more efficiently? And if part of the answer to that question is, Don't run (x) on (y), I'll say so. I think most of their programs are written in COBOL, with perhaps a, few written in Assembler, all running on z/OS. I know they use some stored procedures, but I don't know how many or what for. I'd guesstimate they have about 100 developers if that gives you some idea of size. OK, that's a good feel. I assume it's a reasonably generous mix of OLTP and batch as well. Assuming there's a magic wand that could be waved that would (with zero cost/risk/time) allow these applications to run with another database, one technical question I would look at carefully would be the forecasted CPU increase, particularly on the application side. The present connections between those applications and the database is intra-LPAR I assume, and presumably that's reasonably well optimized. As you stretch the wire length between those two tiers it'll tend to increase CPU on both sides, other things being equal. So I'd want to find out how much that proximity effect is. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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 _ New: Messenger sign-in on the MSN homepage http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9677403 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Hi Frank, I'm very much out of my depth in this area so I'm very grateful for the input I've received from you and others. Thanks! Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:57:00 -0600 From: frank.swarbr...@efirstbank.com Subject: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu In their defense one might note that all other database clients also travel said long path from the client to the database. So while z/OS - DB2 z/OS has it's advantage, it's not like said longer path is not being used elsewhere. And if they have the database in an IFL it can use hipersockets. Still not as fast as staying within z/OS, but faster than over a real network. Frank On 9/3/2009 at 7:22 AM, in message , Dave Salt wrote: Hi Timothy, My friend is in North America, but I'll pass your message on to him so he can pass it on to his management. I agree with you about stretching the wire length, and it would certainly be a concern if it were me making the decision. Not just because of the increase in time, but also the possible points of failure. But, my friends management doesn't seem to have the same concern. Thanks again, Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:59:25 +0900 From: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Dave, Probably all companies (mine included) have the goal to reduce costs, made more urgent in the present economic conditions. So that makes sense. I don't know if your friend's company is located in my part of the world (Asia), but if so he should feel free to contact me offline. If he's elsewhere I can probably provide a referral, if that's helpful. It's rare that I don't find some reasonable cost-reducing options. My only condition is that I get a shot at looking at the total business picture (or at least closer to that), because the more I have to work with the more (and more useful) ideas I can suggest. Said another way, if someone says to me, Make my mainframe cheaper, well, that's easy: unplug it and sell it on eBay. Presumably that isn't going to be a very successful business strategy, however. As another example, my company might figure out a way to cut the paper budget to zero, whereupon none of the salespeople can write or execute contracts. Or cut the telephone budget to zero, whereupon nobody can talk with any (quickly former) customers. The business context is important to understand, and I'm much more useful (and helpful) when the question is, How can I make my business run more efficiently? And if part of the answer to that question is, Don't run (x) on (y), I'll say so. I think most of their programs are written in COBOL, with perhaps a, few written in Assembler, all running on z/OS. I know they use some stored procedures, but I don't know how many or what for. I'd guesstimate they have about 100 developers if that gives you some idea of size. OK, that's a good feel. I assume it's a reasonably generous mix of OLTP and batch as well. Assuming there's a magic wand that could be waved that would (with zero cost/risk/time) allow these applications to run with another database, one technical question I would look at carefully would be the forecasted CPU increase, particularly on the application side. The present connections between those applications and the database is intra-LPAR I assume, and presumably that's reasonably well optimized. As you stretch the wire length between those two tiers it'll tend to increase CPU on both sides, other things being equal. So I'd want to find out how much that proximity effect is. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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 _ New: Messenger sign-in on the MSN homepage http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9677403 -- 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 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above
Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Why not DB2 for Z/Linux. IIRC, it does exist. DB2 will run in almost as many environments as ORACLE! Tim Sipples, can you jump in here! Hth, snip A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Instead, they are now toying with the idea of converting DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux. The primary reason to convert is to save money, but they haven't established how hard it would be to convert or if it would even save them any money. So once again I thought I'd throw the question out there and ask if anyone has gone through this type of conversion or has any opinions they'd be willing to share? /snip -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
UDB is DB2 on the open systems. _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Staller, Allan Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux Why not DB2 for Z/Linux. IIRC, it does exist. DB2 will run in almost as many environments as ORACLE! Tim Sipples, can you jump in here! Hth, snip A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Instead, they are now toying with the idea of converting DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux. The primary reason to convert is to save money, but they haven't established how hard it would be to convert or if it would even save them any money. So once again I thought I'd throw the question out there and ask if anyone has gone through this type of conversion or has any opinions they'd be willing to share? /snip This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
On 9/2/2009 at 9:22 AM, Jousma, David david.jou...@53.com wrote: UDB is DB2 on the open systems. Correct, although as is IBM's wont, it's now called DB2 LUW (Linux/UNIX/Windows). A completely different code base from DB2 on z/OS, with some differences in available features, but as close as you're going to get to the DB2 you might be used to on z/OS. Mark Post -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
FWIW, the UDB name went away after V8. As for V9.1 the open systems product is DB2 Version x for Linux, UNIX and Windows (where x is 9, 9.5 or 9.7 at the moment). But yes, whenever (hopefully!) anyway refers to UDB they almost always mean the DB2 for open systems product. Of course I think that DB2 for z/OS also had Universal Database as part of the name for a while, so using UDB as the whole name is ambiguous at best. On 9/2/2009 at 7:22 AM, in message a90766b5039c59409110c92d47216f5903d63...@s1flokydce2k322.dm0001.info53.com, Jousma, David david.jou...@53.com wrote: UDB is DB2 on the open systems. _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Staller, Allan Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux Why not DB2 for Z/Linux. IIRC, it does exist. DB2 will run in almost as many environments as ORACLE! Tim Sipples, can you jump in here! Hth, snip A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Instead, they are now toying with the idea of converting DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux. The primary reason to convert is to save money, but they haven't established how hard it would be to convert or if it would even save them any money. So once again I thought I'd throw the question out there and ask if anyone has gone through this type of conversion or has any opinions they'd be willing to share? /snip This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Glad I can help them dodge that bullet! I don't have an answer on z/OS to LUW, but I do have a few comments... To access DB2 on Linux from z/OS they will still be required to have the entire DB2 for z/OS product. So they'd end up having both DB2 for z/OS *and* DB2/LUW (DB2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows -- the current name for what used to be called UDB). While we, in fact, are going this exact direction I just want to make sure it's clear that it is required. Now this doesn't necessarily mean they will continue paying the same money for DB2 on z/OS. Our hope is that usage based pricing will bring down the cost of DB2 on z/OS, but we are not in production yet so we do not know. They definitely need to run the numbers by IBM. Anyway, the thought is that DB2 on z/OS usage will drop because it won't actually be accessing it's own database (other than the communications database). Don't know if this is a realistic expectation. The main difference for us is that we don't currently have DB2 for z/OS in production, so we won't really be migrating from having z/OS as the data server to having Linux as the data server. So we'll never really know what we would have paid if we had databases on the z/OS side. Good luck to them! Frank On 9/1/2009 at 11:50 PM, in message blu149-w7434f96aef9fd09003726a1...@phx.gbl, Dave Salt ds...@hotmail.com wrote: A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Instead, they are now toying with the idea of converting DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux. The primary reason to convert is to save money, but they haven't established how hard it would be to convert or if it would even save them any money. So once again I thought I'd throw the question out there and ask if anyone has gone through this type of conversion or has any opinions they'd be willing to share? Thanks! Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm _ New: Messenger sign-in on the MSN homepage http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9677403 -- 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 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
mp...@novell.com (Mark Post) writes: Correct, although as is IBM's wont, it's now called DB2 LUW (Linux/UNIX/Windows). A completely different code base from DB2 on z/OS, with some differences in available features, but as close as you're going to get to the DB2 you might be used to on z/OS. original SQL/RDBMS was system/r in bldg. 28. there was then system/r technology transfer from bldg. 28 to endicott for sql/ds. misc. past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#systemr now one of the people mentioned in this old post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13 mentions that he had been in STL and did most of the technology transfer from Endicott back to STL for DB2. Later there was C-language RDBMS implementation, originally for OS2 done at the same lab. that was doing C-language work ... code name shelby (also codenames persist and crosswinds). one of the early problems with system/r (and descendents) was the PLS implementation. The PLS (and other 370 related) group had been killed off during the future system phase ... and it took a long time to reconsititute it. old reference to several of the issues ... somewhat involving system/r ... including the PLS issue http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#email800920 there is also one that is nearly twice as long dated four days later that can be found here: http://research.microsoft.com/~gray/papers/CritiqueOfIBM%27sCSResearch.doc misc. past posts mentioning shelby: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#1 Foreign key in Oracle Sql http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#41 Mainframe Applications and Records Keeping? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#13 IBM sues maker of Intel-based Mainframe clones http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#12 Newbie question on table design http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007s.html#21 Ellison Looks Back As Oracle Turns 30 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#57 No offense to any one but is DB2/6000 an old technology. Does anybody still use it, if so what type of industries?? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#58 Opinion: The top 10 operating system stinkers -- 40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
Dave, A few questions before attempting an answer: 1. What business goal(s) does your friend's company have? 2. What sort of applications access DB2? From where? (Some shape/feel/size/number/intensity sort of information would be helpful.) 3. Big databases? Growing? How big? 4. What's the nature of the business activities supported by the applications and databases? Is this missile launch control, or is this Paris Hilton's blog? (In other words, what sort of qualities of service expectations and requirements are relevant here? Although Paris Hilton's blog probably is important) That's probably a good start. As mentioned, UDB (Universal Database) refers to both DB2 for z/OS and DB2 for Linux/UNIX/Windows. After all, if it didn't mean both, it wouldn't be so universal, would it?, I try to avoid the term open system since marketers have (unfortunately) destroyed any meaning it once had (if it did). Consider this example available for sale: * closed source code * runs only on patent-encumbered CPUs * only fully functional on hardware with digital rights management circuitry * limits playback of audio and video according to digital rights management * only fully functional with key-signed drivers and applications (with the vendor controlling the keys) * requires activation keys to install and operate * activation keys have tiered function * vendor has the technical means to remotely revoke activation keys * ceases to operate if hardware components are changed I have just described Microsoft Windows. (And I could list several other attributes most customers would consider hostile.) Could anyone explain to me what that should ever be called an open system? I really don't get it. Words should have meaning. Speaking only for myself. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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
Convert DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux
A while ago I mentioned on this forum that a friend of mine works for a company that is considering a conversion from DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux. I asked if anyone had any opinions on this, and Frank Swarbrick pointed out that Oracle Access Manager (which is the link between z/OS and z/Linux) has been finalized at version 10.2. I passed this information on to my friend who passed it on to his management, and as a result they are no longer interested in this option (many thanks to Frank for saving them going on a wild goose chase!). Instead, they are now toying with the idea of converting DB2 on z/OS to UDB on z/Linux. The primary reason to convert is to save money, but they haven't established how hard it would be to convert or if it would even save them any money. So once again I thought I'd throw the question out there and ask if anyone has gone through this type of conversion or has any opinions they'd be willing to share? Thanks! Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm _ New: Messenger sign-in on the MSN homepage http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9677403 -- 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: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle
My management has asked me to see if anyone is using this configuration, Oracle running under z/Linux with z/VM. If so, would you be willing to talk to me offlist about it? z/VM 5.3 5.3 SuSe Linux1-IFL Oracle Database on Linux, Application Server on Windows someplace (hey the data gets mirrored as part of the z/OS z/VM system and we leave it to the Windows folks to recover the application. Rationale is the data is ever changing and the it makes it easier to recover the app on windows.) Oracle Database on Linux and Application Server on Linux. This app may have been shut down recently although it worked all very well. We also run IBM Websphere Application Server which they can choose to use with Oracle. FYI we do WAS DB2 besides Oracle. Will send you my collection of comments, questions, etc, collected over the last 4+ years running things. jim -- 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: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle
Hi Jim, We are also considering options, including z/VM, zLinux, etc. May I have a copy of the notes too? Thanks, Linda Mooney - Original Message - From: Jim Marshall jim.marsh...@opm.gov To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:38:18 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle My management has asked me to see if anyone is using this configuration, Oracle running under z/Linux with z/VM. If so, would you be willing to talk to me offlist about it? z/VM 5.3 5.3 SuSe Linux 1-IFL Oracle Database on Linux, Application Server on Windows someplace (hey the data gets mirrored as part of the z/OS z/VM system and we leave it to the Windows folks to recover the application. Rationale is the data is ever changing and the it makes it easier to recover the app on windows.) Oracle Database on Linux and Application Server on Linux. This app may have been shut down recently although it worked all very well. We also run IBM Websphere Application Server which they can choose to use with Oracle. FYI we do WAS DB2 besides Oracle. Will send you my collection of comments, questions, etc, collected over the last 4+ years running things. jim -- 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
Re: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle
Can I 3rd that? Please send to bob.co...@usda.gov -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Linda Mooney Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle Hi Jim, We are also considering options, including z/VM, zLinux, etc. May I have a copy of the notes too? Thanks, Linda Mooney - Original Message - From: Jim Marshall jim.marsh...@opm.gov To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:38:18 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle My management has asked me to see if anyone is using this configuration, Oracle running under z/Linux with z/VM.  If so, would you be willing to talk to me offlist about it? z/VM 5.3 5.3  SuSe Linux   1-IFL Oracle Database on Linux, Application Server on Windows someplace (hey the data gets mirrored as part of the z/OS z/VM system and we leave it to the Windows folks to recover the application. Rationale is the data is ever changing and the it makes it easier to recover the app on windows.) Oracle Database on Linux and Application Server on Linux.  This app may have  been shut down recently although it worked all very well. We also run IBM Websphere Application Server which they can choose to use with Oracle.  FYI we do WAS DB2 besides Oracle.  Will send you my collection of comments, questions, etc, collected over the last 4+ years running things. jim  -- 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
Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle
My management has asked me to see if anyone is using this configuration, Oracle running under z/Linux with z/VM. If so, would you be willing to talk to me offlist about it? Thanks Lizette lizette.koeh...@mindspring.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: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle
Lizette, Based on prior posts, David Kreuter can probably answer a lot of your questions based on his engagement with the Quebec government. First, Google his name and Quebec. Bob - -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle My management has asked me to see if anyone is using this configuration, Oracle running under z/Linux with z/VM. If so, would you be willing to talk to me offlist about it? Thanks Lizette lizette.koeh...@mindspring.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 -- 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: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle
We have z/vm 5.4, SUSE 9.3 10.2 with Oracle 10g running as a DB server for a data warehouse on a 2096 with two IFLs. Shoot me an email sometime to this address craig.ot...@region10.org . -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Richards, Robert B. Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle Lizette, Based on prior posts, David Kreuter can probably answer a lot of your questions based on his engagement with the Quebec government. First, Google his name and Quebec. Bob - -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Who has z/Linux, z/VM and Oracle My management has asked me to see if anyone is using this configuration, Oracle running under z/Linux with z/VM. If so, would you be willing to talk to me offlist about it? Thanks Lizette lizette.koeh...@mindspring.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 -- 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
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
I second everything Frank said. My company- one of the largest plumbing/hvac wholesalers in the country, has very successfully developed almost all back office processing systems (Payroll, GL, AP, Cash Mgmt, Securities Mgmt, etc) in house over the past 3 decades (2 of which I've been a part of). While everyone and their third cousin may indeed be using packaged software, I believe the ones who can figure out how to cost effectively *not* be part of the pack, are the ones who will rise above the pack. If you have strong IT, Finance, and Executive Management all working hand in hand, you can develop custom systems which will give your company a competitive advantage. Nearly every time we've done a make vs buy analysis it has not even been close. There are a few exceptions- Fixed Assets, for example, where the frequent and sometimes complex tax law changes made it a better option to buy a package that is maintained by experts. And a few other add-on enhancement products, such as an OCR scanning solution as a front end to our AP system, to replace hand-keying 800,000 paper invoices a year. No way could we develop and maintain that kind of special software. But for our core business processing, outsourcing or packages just ain't gonna cut it. Bill Frank Swarbrick frank.swarbrick@ EFIRSTBANK.COMTo Sent by: IBM IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Mainframe cc Discussion List ibm-m...@bama.ua Fax to .edu Subject Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 07/14/2009 08:32 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?) PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List ibm-m...@bama.ua .edu On 7/14/2009 at 5:11 PM, in message a3a2b85f0907141611v32ced8ebl7b44ce513b35a...@mail.gmail.com, Tony Harminc tz...@attglobal.net wrote: 2009/7/12 Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com: Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. I'm sure you are right. But the piece that puzzles me is that there seem to be so many companies whose core business is really just moving bytes from place to place, who nonetheless think outsourcing is a Good Idea. I'm speaking most obviously of banks, but pretty much all financial services businesses, insurance, and so on are in the same place. Sure, it doesn't make sense for each bank to write their own operating system, web browser, etc. etc., but the actual applications *are* the core of their business. What they can and typically do [try to] outsource is precisely the things that benefit least from leveraging work across multiple customers, i.e. operations and helpdesk. I can testify that we are one bank that has written all of our core banking applications. Not to mention our Internet banking site. We actually have our own homegrown Human Resources and General Ledger systems, but are in the process of migrating those to packaged applications since they are in need of updating and not part of our core business. In my opinion both of these are good things. I can't imagine how our business would function if we had packaged core applications. Our
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
I am quite curious as to how our GL system conversion will come out. Interestingly, our developer who was primary on our mainframe GL system for the last few years has transfered to the packaged applications team and will implement the packaged GL application (Oracle PeopleSoft Enterprise General Ledger). She's taking many, many classes, and already she's opined that there will be boatloads of customization. (Not sure if opined is the correct word, but I've always wanted to use it in a sentence!) Frank -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 F: 303-235-2075 On 7/14/2009 at 6:44 PM, in message c3dc50f77dfe2f4e814a9575dadca9430254f...@corpusmx10c.corp.emc.com, Chris Edwards edwards_ch...@emc.com wrote: Stone soup anyone? A man is traveling the tribes of Africa. Each night he walks into a village and offers to provide his special stone soup in exchange for a place to sleep. He takes a large stone from his swag and boils it in a large pot of water. After a while he asks the villagers to try it. Of course it is quite bland so he asks them to fetch various vegetables and a piece of meat. Eventually they have a lovely meal after which the man gets a place to sleep the night and in the morning picks up his stone and moves on to the next village. The players in this story? Man: Consultants (lots of them!) Stone: Off the shelf S/W of your choice Villagers: Any large organization of your choice Veges and Meat: The customization of afore mentioned S/W :-) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2009 10:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?) On 7/14/2009 at 5:11 PM, in message a3a2b85f0907141611v32ced8ebl7b44ce513b35a...@mail.gmail.com, Tony Harminc tz...@attglobal.net wrote: 2009/7/12 Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com: Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. I'm sure you are right. But the piece that puzzles me is that there seem to be so many companies whose core business is really just moving bytes from place to place, who nonetheless think outsourcing is a Good Idea. I'm speaking most obviously of banks, but pretty much all financial services businesses, insurance, and so on are in the same place. Sure, it doesn't make sense for each bank to write their own operating system, web browser, etc. etc., but the actual applications *are* the core of their business. What they can and typically do [try to] outsource is precisely the things that benefit least from leveraging work across multiple customers, i.e. operations and helpdesk. I can testify that we are one bank that has written all of our core banking applications. Not to mention our Internet banking site. We actually have our own homegrown Human Resources and General Ledger systems, but are in the process of migrating those to packaged applications since they are in need of updating and not part of our core business. In my opinion both of these are good things. I can't imagine how our business would function if we had packaged core applications. Our users want too many special customizations, and they want them now! :-) As for outsourcing totally, we'll have none of that! Frank The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- 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
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
snip I am quite curious as to how our GL system conversion will come out. Interestingly, our developer who was primary on our mainframe GL system for the last few years has transfered to the packaged applications team and will implement the packaged GL application (Oracle PeopleSoft Enterprise General Ledger). She's taking many, many classes, and already she's opined that there will be boatloads of customization. (Not sure if opined is the correct word, but I've always wanted to use it in a sentence!) /snip Having used ORACLE GL (not the PeopleSoft version) in a prior life, I was not very impressed. Performance was poor and the code that I had a chance to look at was awful. A PFCSK could do better! -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
What is a PFCSK? On 7/15/2009 at 3:03 PM, in message 6cd8dd927eba514e9db1e36304be38d7117ad...@hou-mail.kbm1.loc, Staller, Allan allan.stal...@kbm1.com wrote: snip I am quite curious as to how our GL system conversion will come out. Interestingly, our developer who was primary on our mainframe GL system for the last few years has transfered to the packaged applications team and will implement the packaged GL application (Oracle PeopleSoft Enterprise General Ledger). She's taking many, many classes, and already she's opined that there will be boatloads of customization. (Not sure if opined is the correct word, but I've always wanted to use it in a sentence!) /snip Having used ORACLE GL (not the PeopleSoft version) in a prior life, I was not very impressed. Performance was poor and the code that I had a chance to look at was awful. A PFCSK could do better! -- 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 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick What is a PFCSK? Pimply Faced Computer Science Kiddie. -jc- -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
2009/7/12 Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com: Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. I'm sure you are right. But the piece that puzzles me is that there seem to be so many companies whose core business is really just moving bytes from place to place, who nonetheless think outsourcing is a Good Idea. I'm speaking most obviously of banks, but pretty much all financial services businesses, insurance, and so on are in the same place. Sure, it doesn't make sense for each bank to write their own operating system, web browser, etc. etc., but the actual applications *are* the core of their business. What they can and typically do [try to] outsource is precisely the things that benefit least from leveraging work across multiple customers, i.e. operations and helpdesk. Curious... Tony H. -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
On 7/14/2009 at 5:11 PM, in message a3a2b85f0907141611v32ced8ebl7b44ce513b35a...@mail.gmail.com, Tony Harminc tz...@attglobal.net wrote: 2009/7/12 Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com: Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. I'm sure you are right. But the piece that puzzles me is that there seem to be so many companies whose core business is really just moving bytes from place to place, who nonetheless think outsourcing is a Good Idea. I'm speaking most obviously of banks, but pretty much all financial services businesses, insurance, and so on are in the same place. Sure, it doesn't make sense for each bank to write their own operating system, web browser, etc. etc., but the actual applications *are* the core of their business. What they can and typically do [try to] outsource is precisely the things that benefit least from leveraging work across multiple customers, i.e. operations and helpdesk. I can testify that we are one bank that has written all of our core banking applications. Not to mention our Internet banking site. We actually have our own homegrown Human Resources and General Ledger systems, but are in the process of migrating those to packaged applications since they are in need of updating and not part of our core business. In my opinion both of these are good things. I can't imagine how our business would function if we had packaged core applications. Our users want too many special customizations, and they want them now! :-) As for outsourcing totally, we'll have none of that! Frank -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 F: 303-235-2075 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Stone soup anyone? A man is traveling the tribes of Africa. Each night he walks into a village and offers to provide his special stone soup in exchange for a place to sleep. He takes a large stone from his swag and boils it in a large pot of water. After a while he asks the villagers to try it. Of course it is quite bland so he asks them to fetch various vegetables and a piece of meat. Eventually they have a lovely meal after which the man gets a place to sleep the night and in the morning picks up his stone and moves on to the next village. The players in this story? Man: Consultants (lots of them!) Stone: Off the shelf S/W of your choice Villagers: Any large organization of your choice Veges and Meat: The customization of afore mentioned S/W :-) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2009 10:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?) On 7/14/2009 at 5:11 PM, in message a3a2b85f0907141611v32ced8ebl7b44ce513b35a...@mail.gmail.com, Tony Harminc tz...@attglobal.net wrote: 2009/7/12 Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com: Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. I'm sure you are right. But the piece that puzzles me is that there seem to be so many companies whose core business is really just moving bytes from place to place, who nonetheless think outsourcing is a Good Idea. I'm speaking most obviously of banks, but pretty much all financial services businesses, insurance, and so on are in the same place. Sure, it doesn't make sense for each bank to write their own operating system, web browser, etc. etc., but the actual applications *are* the core of their business. What they can and typically do [try to] outsource is precisely the things that benefit least from leveraging work across multiple customers, i.e. operations and helpdesk. I can testify that we are one bank that has written all of our core banking applications. Not to mention our Internet banking site. We actually have our own homegrown Human Resources and General Ledger systems, but are in the process of migrating those to packaged applications since they are in need of updating and not part of our core business. In my opinion both of these are good things. I can't imagine how our business would function if we had packaged core applications. Our users want too many special customizations, and they want them now! :-) As for outsourcing totally, we'll have none of that! Frank -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 F: 303-235-2075 The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. -- 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
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
On 12 Jul 2009 14:00:07 -0700, patrick.oke...@wamu.net (Patrick O'Keefe) wrote: That is probably the inevitable future, but the time frame is not at all clear, and the ecomonic break-even line between do it in-house and buy it changes over time. When you pass development and maintenance over to an outside vendor you also pass off control. The vendor's service had better be a very good match to the business needs or the economic advantage disappears. But all they need are effective promises. Once the old shop closes down, it costs too much to undo the change. -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
On 12 Jul 2009 11:39:56 -0700, bshan...@rocketsoftware.com (Bob Shannon) wrote: Well, what I know is that when companies built their own applications, they talked about gaining a competitive advantage. When's the last time anyone heard that? When companies built their own applications, they could last twenty years or more. What's the life expectancy today? When companies built their own applications, the applications did exactly what was required by the business instead of requiring the business to change to accommodate the software. Does one size really fit all? There always have been compromises between what users think they want and what we could deliver. Then when we built systems to last 20 years or more - business needs changed and we tried, with limited success, to change as well. Will we ever go back? Perhaps not, but outsourcing application development or buying off the shelf software may be more fad than panacea. More likely it will be like buying anything else. There will be a fair amount of choice in buying a software package - as there is in buying a car or a delivery service or a printer. But the market for building a software package, a car, a delivery service, or a printer to meet our business needs is limited, considering the costs and benefits. -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Chris Craddock wrote: [snip] Folks hate to hear me say it, but just about everything we know about IT today is wrong. We're never going back to the home grown development cottage industry and sooner or later the in-house IT function is going to go the way of the dodo too. Our kids and grandkids are almost certainly NOT going to be doing IT as we know it. Pretty scary thought for some, but going to happen nevertheless. Well, there ya' go, pointing out the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Well observed and well said. So, some inferences... * At some point in time, companies will only have workstations (probably thin client machines that use software on some server somewhere else); no servers; no mainframes Just a cloud that computes. So, what's in the cloud? Who cares? as long as it works correctly and is available when I want it. -jc- -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Chris Craddock wrote: Unlurking for a moment... [snip] On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.comwrote: Timothy Sipples wrote: I'm also observing more and more organizations finally figuring out that dis-aggregating existing architectures is exactly the wrong direction to head. The management costs and service quality dimunition, in particular, are just not worth it, and they're getting more costly every year. I find I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be, as a general rule -- indeed, to seek opportunities for simplification. And more and more people seem to be coming to the same conclusions nowadays. You seem to be presuppose some innate rightness of having all of the work in one big box, when in fact, there are huge benefits in scalability and managability from breaking up and distributing work. That's pretty much the point of sysplex after all. You're also presupposing that there are inherent service and quality impacts when you disaggregate. That may often be true in practice, but there's no underlying law of nature that makes it so. To-wit, the previous point about sysplex. Rather than adopting a complexity is bad position, it would be more apt to paraphrase Einstein... A system (theory) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Sysplex is more complex than single instances of plain old MVS, but the benefits far outweigh the complexity. The same is true of distributed systems. Not all complexity is bad. Well, yes. That's why I have trouble getting excited about Web Services. Talk about complicated. Write the service code Describe in WSDL Register in some repository When someone looks for the service, negotiate a price Once accepted, let the requestor run the service Bill me later For goodness' sake: write your own subroutine and be done with it. well in fairness, only the first two are actually requirements for a web service. The first one you have to do no matter whether you're doing web services or CICS/Cobol so I don't see it being relevant to complexity and the WSDL-related tasks are largely done by tools, not by humans. Publishing web service endpoints in a registry is a good thing to do because it allows for run-time binding which makes the applications a lot easier (not harder) to manage and makes them more resilient and flexible. You can move application parts around without changing any code or parmlib-like configuration data. I don't know of anyone doing the negotiate a price/bill me later thing with web services but I guess in theory it could be done. So boiling the meat off the bones here, the only real extra work is the (tool-assisted) WSDL processing and service registry stuff. I will admit they can look a bit intimidating but, in return you get flexibility that you can't even dream about if you just write your own subroutine and be done with it. If what you're trying to accomplish looks like a simple subroutine call, then it probably is simple enough to be one. OTOH if you're trying to juggle data from multiple places to buy stuff online, pay for it, arrange shipping etc. then it would be the height of insanity to just write your own. Those tools have not become pervasive because they are complex and hard to use. They are pervasive because they are powerful and useful. Well, that brings up the old build or buy conundrum. But either case, if you have a tool to do multiple pieces, whether you purchased it or built it yourself, I still don't see a case for setting it up as a Web Service. That was what I was driving at before. You don't need to set up WSDL and register the service, then use UDDI to discover the service. You have it, just use it. I don't think it's the height of insanity to just write your own; depending on the service, it might be a strategic way to get some competitive advantage (provide additional features and services that only your company offers). (Of course, if you decide to build your own, it might end up being inferior to the one your competitors use, then you're up a creek. An excellent reason to hire competent people and keep them updated with training. Ahem.) Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-393-8716 http://www.trainersfriend.com z/OS Application development made easier * Our classes include + How things work + Programming examples with realistic applications + Starter / skeleton code + Complete working programs + Useful utilities and subroutines + Tips and techniques == Ask about being added to our opt-in list: == == * Early announcement of new courses == == * Early announcement of new techincal papers == == * Early announcement of new promotions == -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.comwrote: Chris Craddock wrote: Unlurking for a moment... SNIP If what you're trying to accomplish looks like a simple subroutine call, then it probably is simple enough to be one. OTOH if you're trying to juggle data from multiple places to buy stuff online, pay for it, arrange shipping etc. then it would be the height of insanity to just write your own. Those tools have not become pervasive because they are complex and hard to use. They are pervasive because they are powerful and useful. Well, that brings up the old build or buy conundrum. But either case, if you have a tool to do multiple pieces, whether you purchased it or built it yourself, I still don't see a case for setting it up as a Web Service. That was what I was driving at before. You don't need to set up WSDL and register the service, then use UDDI to discover the service. You have it, just use it. There are some subtle assumptions and gotchas in you just use it. Either the thing you just use is bound with the rest of your application (not very flexible, but certainly easy) -OR- you have to locate and bind to it at run time. We have used versions of that since the jurassic era. Dynamic loading, or link, or (much later) DLLs and RPCs. They're all kissing cousins and they all have the same basic issue who you gonna call? It gets a lot worse if you plan to call/use the thing in a lot of places. Each of those places need to be individually told in their own way where to look. The point of a web service (or a REST service for that matter) is that there is an architecture for locating and binding to the who you gonna call at run time. You don't have to use it. In fact, most people who do use web services don't use a registry at all. However, if you don't use the registry then you have the same problem that has existed since the beginning of time. Somebody has to tell the code (via DD statements, or input parameters, or configuration files) where to look and who to call. That is a fundamental weakness because if you need to change that, you typically end up having to make manual changes all over the place to get the smoke and mirrors to line up again. That configuration effort is a weakness because human beings make more mistakes and take longer to get anything done. Using a registry and a dynamic location/binding protocol eliminates that. Adding the complexity of a registry in one place allows you to remove a lot of configuration in many other places, so while it may look like being an imposition on the simple way, it is actually a net reduction in complexity and yields a lot of operational flexibility. I don't think it's the height of insanity to just write your own; depending on the service, it might be a strategic way to get some competitive advantage (provide additional features and services that only your company offers). (Of course, if you decide to build your own, it might end up being inferior to the one your competitors use, then you're up a creek. An excellent reason to hire competent people and keep them updated with training. Ahem.) Unfortunately for many of us who have made our careers in this business, the economics just aren't there anymore. Nobody does phones in house anymore because there are companies only too willing to do it and hand you a bill. Hardly anybody does their own payroll anymore. Same reason. Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. Realistically no company in its right mind is going to invest development and maintenance effort in something they can buy and have somebody else on the hook for maintaining it. That's what all the buzz about *-as-a-service is about. We didn't have the software technology, or processor capacity, or network bandwidth to solve the problem back in the day, but we do now. That's why we still have datacenters full of home grown stuff and while that home grown stuff is still hanging in there, most new stuff is in one way or another getting service-ized and eventually getting hosted outside of the traditional data center, even if it is still within the corporate intranet. Folks hate to hear me say it, but just about everything we know about IT today is wrong. We're never going back to the home grown development cottage industry and sooner or later the in-house IT
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Folks hate to hear me say it, but just about everything we know about IT today is wrong. We're never going back to the home grown development cottage industry and sooner or later the in-house IT function is going to go the way of the dodo too. Well, what I know is that when companies built their own applications, they talked about gaining a competitive advantage. When's the last time anyone heard that? When companies built their own applications, they could last twenty years or more. What's the life expectancy today? When companies built their own applications, the applications did exactly what was required by the business instead of requiring the business to change to accommodate the software. Does one size really fit all? Will we ever go back? Perhaps not, but outsourcing application development or buying off the shelf software may be more fad than panacea. Bob Shannon Rocket Software -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Chris Craddock wrote: On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.comwrote: [snip] Unfortunately for many of us who have made our careers in this business, the economics just aren't there anymore. Nobody does phones in house anymore because there are companies only too willing to do it and hand you a bill. Hardly anybody does their own payroll anymore. Same reason. Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. Realistically no company in its right mind is going to invest development and maintenance effort in something they can buy and have somebody else on the hook for maintaining it. That's what all the buzz about *-as-a-service is about. We didn't have the software technology, or processor capacity, or network bandwidth to solve the problem back in the day, but we do now. That's why we still have datacenters full of home grown stuff and while that home grown stuff is still hanging in there, most new stuff is in one way or another getting service-ized and eventually getting hosted outside of the traditional data center, even if it is still within the corporate intranet. Folks hate to hear me say it, but just about everything we know about IT today is wrong. We're never going back to the home grown development cottage industry and sooner or later the in-house IT function is going to go the way of the dodo too. Our kids and grandkids are almost certainly NOT going to be doing IT as we know it. Pretty scary thought for some, but going to happen nevertheless. Well, there ya' go, pointing out the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Well observed and well said. So, some inferences... * At some point in time, companies will only have workstations (probably thin client machines that use software on some server somewhere else); no servers; no mainframes * You want networks? We got networks. Let us come and design and install just the network for you * Datacenters will only be owned by companies that sell time or services on their systems, which are likely to look more and more like UNIX and Linux instead of z/OS and VSE and z/VM and z/TPF * IT directors, or CIOs, or whatever they will be called, will consult with a small group to select the mix of software they want to rent / license / use to run their business * The only software developers will be employees of ISVs; of course, these employees will be virtual: - work mostly at home or out of networked office centers rented out by specialized companies - have no benefits; well, some employees might be full time and get some contribution to a SEP/IRA by the company; other than that, it's get your own health, life, retirement, and other benefits yourself; vacation time is your choice and unpaid - be paid either hourly or on a project basis; only the few full time employees will be paid a salary So if I'm going to stay in the business of training z/OS application programmers I'll have to sell to ISVs. Only. (Actually, ISVs have been a growing part of my clientele these days, so that part's not too far off, perhaps.) It has the ring of truth to it. But, like many on the various listserv's, I'm hoping the transition won't be done until I'm ready to retire. Timing is critical here. I remember one morning going down to breakfast at some hotel in St. Louis thinking, This is sure a young man's game. I was in my 30's at the time. Well, I'm still in the game; I'm now 65; on medicare; but still working, and doing well at it. Good thing I have a backup plan; instead of this flaky computer business I'll get into something solid like acting. :) Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-393-8716 http://www.trainersfriend.com z/OS Application development made easier * Our classes include + How things work + Programming examples with realistic applications + Starter / skeleton code + Complete working programs + Useful utilities and subroutines + Tips and techniques == Ask about being added to our opt-in list: == == * Early announcement of new courses == == * Early announcement of new techincal papers == == * Early announcement of new promotions == -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Re: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:20:59 -0500, Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com wrote: ... Realistically no company in its right mind is going to invest development and maintenance effort in something they can buy and have somebody else on the hook for maintaining it. That's what all the buzz about *-as-a-service is about. ... ... Folks hate to hear me say it, but just about everything we know about IT today is wrong. We're never going back to the home grown development cottage industry and sooner or later the in-house IT function is going to go the way of the dodo too. ... That is probably the inevitable future, but the time frame is not at all clear, and the ecomonic break-even line between do it in-house and buy it changes over time. When you pass development and maintenance over to an outside vendor you also pass off control. The vendor's service had better be a very good match to the business needs or the economic advantage disappears. Pat O'Keefe -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Chris Craddock wrote: snip Unfortunately for many of us who have made our careers in this business, the economics just aren't there anymore. Nobody does phones in house anymore because there are companies only too willing to do it and hand you a bill. Interestingly, we still have our own telecommunications department because we have __NOT__ found a 3rd party who will guarantee our current service levels at even our current expense, let alone for less. Hardly anybody does their own payroll anymore. Same reason. Pick just about any piece of non-core business processing (i.e. stuff other than what your company does to make a living) and you will find the same thing. A whole slew of outsiders willing to solve the problem for a buck and a half less than you can do it yourself. Building your own is pretty much guaranteed to take longer, cost more and be less reliable than buying it from somebody else who does it for a living. The outside providers get to leverage their work across multiple customers so their costs are lower, their quality and profits higher. That's why everyone and their third cousin uses packaged software now. That trend is only ever going to accelerate. This is supposedly where we are going. But the cost to convert is an obstacle for us. So, we are basically doing it as we try to convert from legacy systems to new systems. I don't know exactly why, but it is not going very smoothly. snip Folks hate to hear me say it, but just about everything we know about IT today is wrong. We're never going back to the home grown development cottage industry and sooner or later the in-house IT function is going to go the way of the dodo too. Our kids and grandkids are almost certainly NOT going to be doing IT as we know it. Pretty scary thought for some, but going to happen nevertheless. I agree, long term. I still have concerns about what is going to happen to a business in any give country if they are offshored and the communications goes through hostile territory. Or gets taken out by some insane group. Or the comm goes through a friendly area which later becomes unfriendly. One problem that I've noticed is that we don't place as much emphasis on redundancy as we used to. So we have more single points of failure. I remember in the past having two separate leased lines going through different circuits to a given critical location. The Internet is supposed to be self healing. But as it is commercialized, that is not as important. Having multiple circuits to a single location is simply expensive. And short term bottom line managers today don't seem to have the old mindset. But then, perhaps the problem is with me and not them. Maybe the risk is worth the reward (greater profit). That's why Intel machines are now good enough even though the reliability of the z makes them look sick. Just cluster the systems applications so that a failure just doesn't much matter. -- Trying to write with a pencil that is dull is pointless. Maranatha! John McKown -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Chris Craddock writes: Once you have to undispatch work and dispatch something else in the interim it matters a whole lot less whether the thing that the interrupted work is waiting on lives on the same processor or on Mars. As soon as two or more pieces of your application are no longer in the same memory, it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot how far apart they are - particularly if you don't control the whole thing. I was with you up until Mars. :-) Yes, there can be a big(ger) difference between same memory and not. But a radio link to Mars (metaphorically speaking) is also very different than an ethernet cable between two boxes in a server room. If it weren't, nobody would be sweating kilometer/mile counts in synchronous flavors of GDPS, for example. You seem to be presuppose some innate rightness of having all of the work in one big box Never said one big box. Didn't even hint at that, in fact. I am hinting at the word fewer, though. Although boxen isn't the only measure I'd use or even necessarily the best one. I am prepared to advance the radical notion that the customer (who shall remain nameless) who has the following logical architecture for Internet banking (*simplified* high-level view): End User - ... - firewall - HTTPS server - firewall - front-end presentation server - back-end presentation server - MQ server - front-end Tuxedo server - mid-tier Tuxedo server - back-end Tuxedo server - LU0 - CICS Transaction Server - has completely lost the plot. (And they know it now, which is good.) By the way, most or all of those tiers are clustered, and there are about three widely separated data centers involved in that flow as it executes, excluding DR centers. Yes, that's the (inbound) flow for account balance, please. Rube Goldberg would be proud. :-) For perspective, later today I'm going to demonstrate my iPod connecting directly to CICS TS doing exactly the same thing. I said: I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be Einstein said: A system (theory) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Einstein said it better, but obviously we agree. :-) For what it's worth, I am in general agreement with your comments about Web services. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Consulting Enterprise Software Architect IBM Japan, Ltd. e99...@jp.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
SV: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
KISS! Regards, Thomas Berg __ Thomas Berg Specialist IT-U SWEDBANK -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Timothy Sipples Skickat: den 9 juli 2009 07:03 Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Ämne: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux? Nobody so far has mentioned another factor: as you increase the distance (latency) between applications and databases, CPU and memory consumption increases on both sides. I call this phenomenon proximity effects. These proximity effects can be extremely large in many cases. I'm also observing more and more organizations finally figuring out that dis-aggregating existing architectures is exactly the wrong direction to head. The management costs and service quality dimunition, in particular, are just not worth it, and they're getting more costly every year. I find I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be, as a general rule -- indeed, to seek opportunities for simplification. And more and more people seem to be coming to the same conclusions nowadays. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
Hi Mark, I don't know if his management has considered DB2 LUW but that's an excellent point and I'll pass it on. Thanks! Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:23:49 -0600 From: mp...@novell.com Subject: Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux? To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu On 7/8/2009 at 9:49 AM, Dave Salt wrote: A friend of mine develops applications using COBOL and DB2. To save money, management at his company is considering converting DB2 to Oracle. My friend is neither for or against the idea, but has some concerns about how this might affect him. I know nothing about Oracle or z/Linux, so I thought I'd pass his questions on and see if anyone on this list might be able to help him: 1) Has anyone ever gone through this, and if so did it actually save money? I would have to believe that the cost savings would be the reduction in number of licenses required. It's pretty typical that the z/OS LPAR would have far more CPs activated than the Linux one. What I don't understand is why they want to convert to Oracle at the same time. While DB2 LUW is a different code base than DB2 for z/OS, I would think changing to a totally different vendor would involve more risk. Mark Post -- 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 _ Create a cool, new character for your Windows Live™ Messenger. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9656621 -- 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
Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Timothy Sipples wrote: Nobody so far has mentioned another factor: as you increase the distance (latency) between applications and databases, CPU and memory consumption increases on both sides. I call this phenomenon proximity effects. These proximity effects can be extremely large in many cases. I'm also observing more and more organizations finally figuring out that dis-aggregating existing architectures is exactly the wrong direction to head. The management costs and service quality dimunition, in particular, are just not worth it, and they're getting more costly every year. I find I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be, as a general rule -- indeed, to seek opportunities for simplification. And more and more people seem to be coming to the same conclusions nowadays. Well, yes. That's why I have trouble getting excited about Web Services. Talk about complicated. Write the service code Describe in WSDL Register in some repository When someone looks for the service, negotiate a price Once accepted, let the requestor run the service Bill me later For goodness' sake: write your own subroutine and be done with it. Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-393-8716 http://www.trainersfriend.com z/OS Application development made easier * Our classes include + How things work + Programming examples with realistic applications + Starter / skeleton code + Complete working programs + Useful utilities and subroutines + Tips and techniques == Ask about being added to our opt-in list: == == * Early announcement of new courses == == * Early announcement of new techincal papers == == * Early announcement of new promotions == -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Unlurking for a moment... On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.comwrote: Timothy Sipples wrote: Nobody so far has mentioned another factor: as you increase the distance (latency) between applications and databases, CPU and memory consumption increases on both sides. I call this phenomenon proximity effects. These proximity effects can be extremely large in many cases. I would buy Large in some cases but by no means all. Once you have to undispatch work and dispatch something else in the interim it matters a whole lot less whether the thing that the interrupted work is waiting on lives on the same processor or on Mars. As soon as two or more pieces of your application are no longer in the same memory, it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot how far apart they are - particularly if you don't control the whole thing. I'm also observing more and more organizations finally figuring out that dis-aggregating existing architectures is exactly the wrong direction to head. The management costs and service quality dimunition, in particular, are just not worth it, and they're getting more costly every year. I find I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be, as a general rule -- indeed, to seek opportunities for simplification. And more and more people seem to be coming to the same conclusions nowadays. You seem to be presuppose some innate rightness of having all of the work in one big box, when in fact, there are huge benefits in scalability and managability from breaking up and distributing work. That's pretty much the point of sysplex after all. You're also presupposing that there are inherent service and quality impacts when you disaggregate. That may often be true in practice, but there's no underlying law of nature that makes it so. To-wit, the previous point about sysplex. Rather than adopting a complexity is bad position, it would be more apt to paraphrase Einstein... A system (theory) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Sysplex is more complex than single instances of plain old MVS, but the benefits far outweigh the complexity. The same is true of distributed systems. Not all complexity is bad. Well, yes. That's why I have trouble getting excited about Web Services. Talk about complicated. Write the service code Describe in WSDL Register in some repository When someone looks for the service, negotiate a price Once accepted, let the requestor run the service Bill me later For goodness' sake: write your own subroutine and be done with it. well in fairness, only the first two are actually requirements for a web service. The first one you have to do no matter whether you're doing web services or CICS/Cobol so I don't see it being relevant to complexity and the WSDL-related tasks are largely done by tools, not by humans. Publishing web service endpoints in a registry is a good thing to do because it allows for run-time binding which makes the applications a lot easier (not harder) to manage and makes them more resilient and flexible. You can move application parts around without changing any code or parmlib-like configuration data. I don't know of anyone doing the negotiate a price/bill me later thing with web services but I guess in theory it could be done. So boiling the meat off the bones here, the only real extra work is the (tool-assisted) WSDL processing and service registry stuff. I will admit they can look a bit intimidating but, in return you get flexibility that you can't even dream about if you just write your own subroutine and be done with it. If what you're trying to accomplish looks like a simple subroutine call, then it probably is simple enough to be one. OTOH if you're trying to juggle data from multiple places to buy stuff online, pay for it, arrange shipping etc. then it would be the height of insanity to just write your own. Those tools have not become pervasive because they are complex and hard to use. They are pervasive because they are powerful and useful. -- This email might be from the artist formerly known as CC (or not) You be the judge. -- 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: Complexity (was Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?)
Chris Craddock wrote: Unlurking for a moment... On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.comwrote: Timothy Sipples wrote: Nobody so far has mentioned another factor: as you increase the distance (latency) between applications and databases, CPU and memory consumption increases on both sides. I call this phenomenon proximity effects. These proximity effects can be extremely large in many cases. I would buy Large in some cases but by no means all. Once you have to undispatch work and dispatch something else in the interim it matters a whole lot less whether the thing that the interrupted work is waiting on lives on the same processor or on Mars. As soon as two or more pieces of your application are no longer in the same memory, it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot how far apart they are - particularly if you don't control the whole thing. I'm also observing more and more organizations finally figuring out that dis-aggregating existing architectures is exactly the wrong direction to head. The management costs and service quality dimunition, in particular, are just not worth it, and they're getting more costly every year. I find I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be, as a general rule -- indeed, to seek opportunities for simplification. And more and more people seem to be coming to the same conclusions nowadays. You seem to be presuppose some innate rightness of having all of the work in one big box, when in fact, there are huge benefits in scalability and managability from breaking up and distributing work. That's pretty much the point of sysplex after all. You're also presupposing that there are inherent service and quality impacts when you disaggregate. That may often be true in practice, but there's no underlying law of nature that makes it so. To-wit, the previous point about sysplex. Rather than adopting a complexity is bad position, it would be more apt to paraphrase Einstein... A system (theory) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Sysplex is more complex than single instances of plain old MVS, but the benefits far outweigh the complexity. The same is true of distributed systems. Not all complexity is bad. Well, yes. That's why I have trouble getting excited about Web Services. Talk about complicated. Write the service code Describe in WSDL Register in some repository When someone looks for the service, negotiate a price Once accepted, let the requestor run the service Bill me later For goodness' sake: write your own subroutine and be done with it. well in fairness, only the first two are actually requirements for a web service. The first one you have to do no matter whether you're doing web services or CICS/Cobol so I don't see it being relevant to complexity and the WSDL-related tasks are largely done by tools, not by humans. Publishing web service endpoints in a registry is a good thing to do because it allows for run-time binding which makes the applications a lot easier (not harder) to manage and makes them more resilient and flexible. You can move application parts around without changing any code or parmlib-like configuration data. I don't know of anyone doing the negotiate a price/bill me later thing with web services but I guess in theory it could be done. So boiling the meat off the bones here, the only real extra work is the (tool-assisted) WSDL processing and service registry stuff. I will admit they can look a bit intimidating but, in return you get flexibility that you can't even dream about if you just write your own subroutine and be done with it. If what you're trying to accomplish looks like a simple subroutine call, then it probably is simple enough to be one. OTOH if you're trying to juggle data from multiple places to buy stuff online, pay for it, arrange shipping etc. then it would be the height of insanity to just write your own. Those tools have not become pervasive because they are complex and hard to use. They are pervasive because they are powerful and useful. Yeah, you're right: I mixed in various pieces, some of which don't belong. First, you're either a provider of a service or your a consumer of a web service. Of course, you could be both. In fact, that seems to be what people are doing right now: creating their own web services and consuming them themselves; in this case, you don't even need a registry. I was under the impression that one of the appeals to some software company might be to be a provider of services for a fee. In this case, you need to use WDSL to describe your service, you need to register this service somewhere that everyone can get to, and then you need to wait for some consumer to come along. The service consumer, on the other hand uses UDDI (I think that's the acronymn) to find a match for a service it needs; then expect to pay on a per use, or a subsrciption, or some other basis. Without the payment angle,
Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
A friend of mine develops applications using COBOL and DB2. To save money, management at his company is considering converting DB2 to Oracle. My friend is neither for or against the idea, but has some concerns about how this might affect him. I know nothing about Oracle or z/Linux, so I thought I'd pass his questions on and see if anyone on this list might be able to help him: 1) Has anyone ever gone through this, and if so did it actually save money? 2) Would z/Linux have to be used for application development, and if so how steep is the learning curve for someone who is used to using ISPF? 3) Do existing COBOL/DB2 programs need to be re-compiled; e.g. do any of the SQL statements have to be changed? 4) Would his personal JCL and Spufi libraries need to be converted? For example, if he has JCL that unloads records from a DB2 table, would he have to modify it to extract the same records from an Oracle table? 5) If conversion is required (whether it be for SQL in COBOL or for Spufi libraries or JCL libraries etc), are there any vendor tools that can help with the conversion? 6) Would different vendor tools be required for things like editing Oracle tables versus DB2 tables, and if so do most of the major vendors have tools available that are comparable to their DB2 tools? 7) Any there any tips/tricks/gotchas that anyone might want to pass along? Thanks in advance, Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm _ Attention all humans. We are your photos. Free us. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9666046 -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
On 7/8/2009 at 9:49 AM, Dave Salt ds...@hotmail.com wrote: A friend of mine develops applications using COBOL and DB2. To save money, management at his company is considering converting DB2 to Oracle. My friend is neither for or against the idea, but has some concerns about how this might affect him. I know nothing about Oracle or z/Linux, so I thought I'd pass his questions on and see if anyone on this list might be able to help him: 1) Has anyone ever gone through this, and if so did it actually save money? I would have to believe that the cost savings would be the reduction in number of licenses required. It's pretty typical that the z/OS LPAR would have far more CPs activated than the Linux one. What I don't understand is why they want to convert to Oracle at the same time. While DB2 LUW is a different code base than DB2 for z/OS, I would think changing to a totally different vendor would involve more risk. Mark Post -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
Dave, We are in the process of converting from DB2 to Oracle. I am not directly involved in this but I can pass on what I hear. It is not a simple migration. Everything has to be rewritten. Thus we have a lot of contractors working on rewriting everything. I have heard comments that there are things that we do in DB2 that Oracle cannot do. I do not know specifics. Per our DB2 type guy, Oracle is 'very immature'. There are next to no tools like DB2 Tools. and there are no monitoring capabilities. I do not know what this is costing, but I bet that it is 'big bucks'. Jerry -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
Jerry Fuchs wrote: Dave, We are in the process of converting from DB2 to Oracle. I am not directly involved in this but I can pass on what I hear. It is not a simple migration. Everything has to be rewritten. Thus we have a lot of contractors working on rewriting everything. I have heard comments that there are things that we do in DB2 that Oracle cannot do. I do not know specifics. Per our DB2 type guy, Oracle is 'very immature'. There are next to no tools like DB2 Tools. and there are no monitoring capabilities. I do not know what this is costing, but I bet that it is 'big bucks'. Jerry Besides, I thought Oracle was discontinuing development of its product for z/OS. What's up with that? No wonder its less expensive. Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-393-8716 http://www.trainersfriend.com z/OS Application development made easier * Our classes include + How things work + Programming examples with realistic applications + Starter / skeleton code + Complete working programs + Useful utilities and subroutines + Tips and techniques == Ask about being added to our opt-in list: == == * Early announcement of new courses == == * Early announcement of new techincal papers == == * Early announcement of new promotions == -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
On 7/8/2009 at 10:38 AM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.com wrote: -snip- Besides, I thought Oracle was discontinuing development of its product for z/OS. What's up with that? They made the business decision that Oracle for Linux on System z was going to be their one and only mainframe version. Mark Post -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
One thing that should be mentioned off the bat is that Oracle has stabilized their z/OS database offerings at version 10.2. Oracle on other platforms are at version 11. You may ask, well why does it matter since we'll be running Oracle on Linux, not z/OS. But that's not entirely true. You still need a client on z/OS to communicate with the server on Linux. I know of two options for doing this. First option: Use Oracle for z/OS client (again, stabilized at version 10.2). We have spoken with Oracle about this and it appears there should be no problems using the 10.2 client on z/OS to communicate with a version 11 server. Any features that would require a version 11 client will not work. Additionally, as Oracle upgrades their server to new versions I couldn't get any guarantees that the version 10.2 client would still be supported for connection to those higher level servers. I imagine that you would also have to recompile all z/OS programs using the Oracle precompiler (Pro*COBOL et al). Second option: Use IBM InfoSphere Federation Server. In this case you would continue to run DB2 for z/OS. You would use DRDA to connect to a Federation Server running on Linux (or UNIX or Windows for that matter). Federation Server would, in turn, connect to your Oracle databases. In this case you would possibly not have to recompile everything, though probably some things. You could, I imagine, continue to use all of your DB2 z/OS tools. With DB2 in the middle I would guess that there would be some functionality that you would lose if it was not supported by Federation Server. I guess a third option would be if your applications were Java you could continue to use JDBC for your client, just using the Oracle JDBC driver instead of the DB2 JDBC driver. In this case I think you would not need either DB2 itself or the regular (non-Java) Oracle client. We are in fact headed toward option 2. Currently we are a VSE shop that uses DB2 on VSE as a client to communication with a DB2 server/Federation Server running on Linux. Currently most of the tables we access from the mainframe are in DB2 itself (on Linux), but we are migrating those tables to Oracle databases and using the Federation Server (which runs inside of the DB2 server on Linux) to access them. So far only two tables have been moved, but things are going fine. For us the main reason for going the Oracle route is that all of our J2EE and Windows applications that have been developed over the last 15 years already use Oracle, so the databases are already there. On the other hand there is now DB2/LUW 9.7 which supports lots of Oracle features to encourage migration from Oracle to DB2. I personally am rather interested in this, if only to take out the extra hop (Fed Server to Oracle). But since we are a relatively large Oracle shop I'm not sure migration to DB2 really makes sense. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I would love to hear lots of discussion on this topic! Frank -- Frank Swarbrick Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development FirstBank Data Corporation Lakewood, CO USA P: 303-235-1403 F: 303-235-2075 On 7/8/2009 at 7:49 AM, in message blu149-w50516d7912c8f37bac9e08a1...@phx.gbl, Dave Salt ds...@hotmail.com wrote: A friend of mine develops applications using COBOL and DB2. To save money, management at his company is considering converting DB2 to Oracle. My friend is neither for or against the idea, but has some concerns about how this might affect him. I know nothing about Oracle or z/Linux, so I thought I'd pass his questions on and see if anyone on this list might be able to help him: 1) Has anyone ever gone through this, and if so did it actually save money? 2) Would z/Linux have to be used for application development, and if so how steep is the learning curve for someone who is used to using ISPF? 3) Do existing COBOL/DB2 programs need to be re-compiled; e.g. do any of the SQL statements have to be changed? 4) Would his personal JCL and Spufi libraries need to be converted? For example, if he has JCL that unloads records from a DB2 table, would he have to modify it to extract the same records from an Oracle table? 5) If conversion is required (whether it be for SQL in COBOL or for Spufi libraries or JCL libraries etc), are there any vendor tools that can help with the conversion? 6) Would different vendor tools be required for things like editing Oracle tables versus DB2 tables, and if so do most of the major vendors have tools available that are comparable to their DB2 tools? 7) Any there any tips/tricks/gotchas that anyone might want to pass along? Thanks in advance, Dave Salt SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it! http://www.mackinney.com/products/SIM/simplist.htm _ Attention all humans. We are your photos. Free us. http
Re: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:53:52 -0600, Mark Post mp...@novell.com wrote: They made the business decision that Oracle for Linux on System z was going to be their one and only mainframe version. Mark Post Fine by me. If any of you have ever done an Oracle install on z/OS, I would bet you would agree it [insert phrase of choice here]. And we only have the Oracle Transparent Gateway for DB2... -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
Besides, I thought Oracle was discontinuing development of its product for z/OS. While Oracle for z/OS has been 'stabilised' for almost three years (as a 31-bit sub-system), the question was about z/LINUX. Oracle is still producing (64-bit) releases/upgrades that run under z/LINUX (or LINUX of any species). - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: Convert DB2 on z/OS to Oracle on z/Linux?
Nobody so far has mentioned another factor: as you increase the distance (latency) between applications and databases, CPU and memory consumption increases on both sides. I call this phenomenon proximity effects. These proximity effects can be extremely large in many cases. I'm also observing more and more organizations finally figuring out that dis-aggregating existing architectures is exactly the wrong direction to head. The management costs and service quality dimunition, in particular, are just not worth it, and they're getting more costly every year. I find I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about not making things more complicated than they need to be, as a general rule -- indeed, to seek opportunities for simplification. And more and more people seem to be coming to the same conclusions nowadays. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
Ted MacNeil writes: 1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit) release. If you want 64-bit on z, you have to go to z/LINUX. Oracle Database 10g R2 (31-bit) is available and is (according to Oracle) their last release for z/OS. There's an IBM redbook describing its capabilities (at 10g R1 level): http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247055.html To their credit, Oracle has said that standard support will be extended, and extended support will be available indefinitely, as long as their customers wish to continue running Oracle Database 10g R2 for z/OS. So there's certainly no emergency. And there are various good options available at any time for customers who wish to replace Oracle Database for z/OS. For example, I worked (a little) with one customer that purchased DB2 9 for z/OS two months ago for this purpose. It is their first DB2 for z/OS implementation. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
Reminder: I don't speak for any corporation. I do speak *to* corporations -- well, at least to people who work at corporations. I think there may be some over-analysis here. In theory at least, any vendor introducing their software product to a new (for them) platform can price it however they want. For example, if they want to come up with a MIPS-equivalent formula for IFLs and charge the same price, they can. Or whatever. (IBM, for example, says that each System z10 IFL core requires 120 Processor Value Units of IBM software -- and some products, particularly in the WebSphere brand, are available sub-capacity -- so that's IBM's formula. But vendors can price using almost any formula they want. Heck, they could price per SMF record processed if that's what they want to do and if you're willing to buy that way.) Vendors can also charge based on how you use the software, which functions you use (and don't use), etc. As one (infamous?) example, Microsoft does that with Windows Vista -- and will do that even more with Windows 7. They plan to ship identical DVDs for Windows 7 for every edition. The only difference is that you'll need more expensive keys as you unlock progressively more function. If you run Windows 7 Home Basic (in emerging markets), your key won't enable Windows Media Center, for example. That said, given the infinite variety of possible prices and pricing methodologies, it then becomes a business decision whether the company can, quite simply, grow its revenues and profits (net -- and that could include stemming revenue and profit losses) by introducing its product on a new platform. So when you communicate with any vendor, if you've got some direct or indirect input along those lines, do be sure to pass it along. The preferred format is something at least very close to: If you do X, I'll do Y, else I'll do Z. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Timothy Sipples timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com wrote: I think there may be some over-analysis here. In theory at least, any vendor introducing their software product to a new (for them) platform can price it however they want. SNIP Of course. What I've seen is some vendors being timorous about Linux on z because they thought that they couldn't charge appropriately, FSVO appropriately, and that they would thus cannibalize other sales. I've heard that many times from companies who think they can ignore the rising tide. Some of them eventually get it, some of them don't; some of them will survive, some of them won't. (And no, I'm not claiming those subsets are congruent.) -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
Eric Bielefeld pisze: I can see why SAS would want to sell to the Windows market. There are how many PCs in the world that run Windows. Several hundred million? Compare that to what - 10,000 possible mainframes to sell to. Bill Gates got to be the richest man on earth putting Windows on every one of those Windows computers, and he only charges around $100 per copy - at least for home use computers. 1. It is not true that Windows costs $100. It's one of the myths we should fight! Look at the price list - any professional version of Windows costs more, and *server* versions costs much more! Add MS Office, Exchange, MS SQL etc. Remember about client licenses, service and support, etc. Multiply by the number of machines. It isn't cheap. 2. I understand that SAS want to sell to the Windows. However it doesn't require to abandon z/OS market - does it ? 3. Last but not least: SAS is popular in mainframe shops (except Poland vbg), but it's not so popular on other platforms. When we talk about SMF records - it's quite obvious that no non-mainframe user would need a tool for this purpose. Disclaimer: This is my limited observation, YMMV. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2008 r. kapitał zakładowy BRE Banku SA wynosi 118.642.672 złote i został w całości wpłacony. -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: You're assuming that you can only run ONE copy of Linux on a CPU. I'm making no such assumption. Pardon me. Implying. See below. snip While this is all very interesting, it doesn't answer my original query. Somebody stated that SAS Institute would lose money if they ported to z/LINUX. I asked why, and we went on a trip down ORACLE Lane. I'm still asking why? Because, regardless of the pricing model, they would/should be new SAS licences. Because software companies tend to make much of money on maintenance. 100 (say) distributed licenses replaced by 1 z license = less maintenance; the ILC doesn't necessarily cover the delta. Plus some vendors let you move licenses, so they might NOT even be new SAS licenses. (I have no idea what SAS licensing looks like, so none of this may apply, but it's the argument some vendors have used to avoid Linux on z.) And even if they are new licenses, another reason some vendors don't like z is the once you bought the MIPS, you own 'em philosophy. How many new Windows licenses have you paid for in your lifetime? (One per PC.) How many new z/OS licenses (one per CEC, no matter how often you've upgraded it.) -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
Because software companies tend to make much of money on maintenance. 100 (say) distributed licenses replaced by 1 z license = less maintenance; the ILC doesn't necessarily cover the delta. If that were true, ORACLE would most likely not been involved in the PQ conversion project, a few years ago. Plus some vendors let you move licenses, so they might NOT even be new SAS licenses. ORACLE (I beleive, but I could be wrong) asked/told them to obtain new licences when Quebec converted. Also (again from memory, and another possibility of error), the licences on z were slightly more expensive than UNIX Windows versions. (I have no idea what SAS licensing looks like, so none of this may apply, but it's the argument some vendors have used to avoid Linux on z.) Exactly, just like the OP. We have no ideas what SAS licensing looks like, so we cannot state, uncategorically, that SAS institute would lose money. Only they know for sure. Who knows? Since it's written in C, maybe it's just testing costs that SAS Institute will have to concern themselves about. But, I don't know. And, I don't know how compatible C gcc are. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
I understand pricing (dis)advantages, which causes that it is cheaper to use SAS on Intel than on z/OS, or run several Linux+Oracle images on IFL than on several Intel machines. However I'm curious - WHY ??? Why does SAS Institute allow for cannibal competition? Is it good for them to lose z/OS customer just to get new Windows license? Are they interested in shrinking z/OS market? From the other hand - why Oracle licenses its database per core? Don't they see IFL is much stronger than Core2Duo? Didn't they see that comparable cpu power machines from HP and IBM differed significantly in number of CPUs? Are they interested in favourizing some platforms? If not, then why the license model does not distinguish CPU models? Just curious -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2008 r. kapitał zakładowy BRE Banku SA wynosi 118.642.672 złote i został w całości wpłacony. -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: I understand pricing (dis)advantages, which causes that it is cheaper to use SAS on Intel than on z/OS, or run several Linux+Oracle images on IFL than on several Intel machines. However I'm curious - WHY ??? Why does SAS Institute allow for cannibal competition? Is it good for them to lose z/OS customer just to get new Windows license? Are they interested in shrinking z/OS market? From the other hand - why Oracle licenses its database per core? Don't they see IFL is much stronger than Core2Duo? Didn't they see that comparable cpu power machines from HP and IBM differed significantly in number of CPUs? Are they interested in favourizing some platforms? If not, then why the license model does not distinguish CPU models? I don't know for sure, but my suspicion is that DB2 is the target. And on z, DB2 rules. In fact, I've heard (anecdotally) that Oracle is abandoning z/OS because the z/OS customers have abandoned Oracle. No idea how true this is. But if true, then they were smart enough to say Since z folks aren't going to put their databases on toy hardware, we need to be on z, period. -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper than the same on dedicated Intel boxen. That's our understanding as well, and the basis for a Proof of Concept proposal we hope to try later this year. -jc- -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
I've heard (anecdotally) that Oracle is abandoning z/OS because the z/OS customers have abandoned Oracle. That statement is both true and false. 1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit) release. If you want 64-bit on z, you have to go to z/LINUX. 2. ORACLE announced, over two years ago, that the were leaving z/OS. It had nothing to do with the 'abandonment' by customers (although the z/OS market is small compared to ORACLE's other platforms). It was profitability and skill sets (theirs and their customers). 3. Also, they didn't want to maintain multiple code streams. And, there's a big difference between ORACLE on z/OS and any other platform. z/LINUX not so much. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
I can see why SAS would want to sell to the Windows market. There are how many PCs in the world that run Windows. Several hundred million? Compare that to what - 10,000 possible mainframes to sell to. Bill Gates got to be the richest man on earth putting Windows on every one of those Windows computers, and he only charges around $100 per copy - at least for home use computers. Eric Eric Bielefeld Sr. Systems Programmer Washington University 314-935-3418 - Original Message - From: R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl I understand pricing (dis)advantages, which causes that it is cheaper to use SAS on Intel than on z/OS, or run several Linux+Oracle images on IFL than on several Intel machines. However I'm curious - WHY ??? Why does SAS Institute allow for cannibal competition? Is it good for them to lose z/OS customer just to get new Windows license? Are they interested in shrinking z/OS market? -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper than the same on dedicated Intel box. Yes, you are correct and for review, 1-IFL (z800-z9EC) equates to one INTEL Dual-Core Server or Laptop. Thus a Quad-Core equates to 2-IFLs. Transferred a laptop Dual-Core Oracle License to my z900 back when. Upgraded to a z9BC later with no increase in charge. Now it is supporting 7 Oracle database instances and could handle many more. Today the Distributed side is configuring all their Servers as Quad-Core or 8- Core Servers. Thus, today Oracle runs about $50K for a Dual-Core and thus $200K for a 8-Core machine. Even have a 10-Core Oracle machine. These usually run VMWARE to be able to run DTP (Development, TEST, Production) on the same Server for an application. They were very excited to show me their 10-Core machine running three instances. Showed them my z9BC running with 1-IFL and 7 Oracle's, 6 DB2s, and in amongst 50+ Virtual Linux Servers in the same three Virtual partitions. I understand the factor is 1.25 for an Oracle license to cover a z10. A very interesting comparison in any way one looks at it. jim -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle (why?)
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: I've heard (anecdotally) that Oracle is abandoning z/OS because the z/OS customers have abandoned Oracle. That statement is both true and false. 1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit) release. If you want 64-bit on z, you have to go to z/LINUX. 2. ORACLE announced, over two years ago, that the were leaving z/OS. It had nothing to do with the 'abandonment' by customers (although the z/OS market is small compared to ORACLE's other platforms). It was profitability and skill sets (theirs and their customers). 3. Also, they didn't want to maintain multiple code streams. And, there's a big difference between ORACLE on z/OS and any other platform. z/LINUX not so much. OK, that's interesting. Though two years ago, Linux on z was well-established, so it doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't have been saying We're going to lose on z/OS but we need a presence on z, and this is a cheap way to get there. I've confirmed that you can usually move an Oracle license from a distributed box to a z. Don't know that that was true for DGTIC or not. Anyway, back to your original question: why would SAS lose money offering SAS on Linux for z? They wouldn't necessarily, of course; if that were axiomatic, there would be no commercial software available for Linux on z. But I believe that the discussion has shown a number of reasons why they might, or at least might believe that they would, including potential loss of maintenance revenue and cannibalization of other platforms. -- 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
z/Linux
anyone know if SAS can run on z/Linux?? from what I gather SAS only supports it on Intel/amd platform -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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: z/Linux
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:08:17 -0600, Ron Wells rwe...@agfinance.com wrote: anyone know if SAS can run on z/Linux?? from what I gather SAS only supports it on Intel/amd platform SAS does not currently run on zLinux. I would encourage all interested parties to formally contact SAS Support for future RD planning and deployment. Scott Barry SBBWorks, Inc. http://support.sas.com/resources/sysreq/hosts/unix/ -- 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: z/Linux
anyone know if SAS can run on z/Linux?? from what I gather SAS only supports it on Intel/amd platform Why not go to www.sas.com and post this query? They can answer better than we can. Also, you could make a formal request to have it supported. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux
On 2/6/2009 at 11:08 AM, Ron Wells rwe...@agfinance.com wrote: anyone know if SAS can run on z/Linux?? from what I gather SAS only supports it on Intel/amd platform So far, SAS Institute has declined to put it on the market, although various beta testers among their customers were very happy with it. As others have said, please add your company's voice to the (slowly?) growing chorus that would like to see it released. Mark Post -- 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: z/Linux
Been to site and asked question and there list they gave me did not have z/Linux...so yes..I submitted interest..let's see if someone...someday---wakes up.. but then---there maybe less money for them Oh---forgot---we'll just bail them outor give them more money because they had to redesign / retool .lol..at our expense . -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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: z/Linux
there maybe less money for them. Why would there be less money? You can't charge for LINUX (except maybe support), but you can charge for products that run under LINUX. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:34:56 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: there maybe less money for them. Why would there be less money? You can't charge for LINUX (except maybe support), but you can charge for products that run under LINUX. Yes, you can charge for Linux. In any case, Ron was talking about SAS. Too busy driving to stop for gas! Maybe you should slow down. -- Tom Marchant -- 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: z/Linux
Ted MacNEIL wrote: there maybe less money for them. Why would there be less money? You can't charge for LINUX (except maybe support), but you can charge for products that run under LINUX. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! Not exactly true. You can charge for LINUX, the question is will anyone pay for it. There is nothing in the GPL license that prevents you from making your own distribution and charging for it. You just have to supply the source code and not prevent anyone from doing whatever they want with it, including undercutting your price. -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL Gosh, that takes me back. Or forward. That's the trouble with time travel; you can never remember. The Doctor, in The Androids of Tara -- 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: z/Linux
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL So, my question still stands. Why would SAS Institute not make a profit on z/LINUX SAS? PS: I'm aware of the terms and conditions of the GPL. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! Because 1. The pricing scheme would be expected to be cheaper 2. Therefore many would drop their z/OS (expensive) license 3. Thus SAS Institute total revenue might suffer. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State Univsersity -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: z/Linux Not exactly true. You can charge for LINUX, the question is will anyone pay for it. There is nothing in the GPL license that prevents you from making your own distribution and charging for it. You just have to supply the source code and not prevent anyone from doing whatever they want with it, including undercutting your price. That's what I thought I said. But, my point was that if SAS (or any other product) is ported to LINUX, you can charge whatever you want, and you DO NOT have to make the source code available. So, my question still stands. Why would SAS Institute not make a profit on z/LINUX SAS? PS: I'm aware of the terms and conditions of the GPL. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: z/Linux
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0500, Mark Jacobs mark.jac...@custserv.com wrote: Not exactly true. You can charge for LINUX, the question is will anyone pay for it. True. But we do pay for it. Why? Not for Linux, per se, but for the support. And the support only comes when you buy that vendor's Linux distro. There is nothing in the GPL license that prevents you from making your own distribution and charging for it. Ref: CentOS which is a free-as-in-beer clone of RHEL. However, there are parts of RHEL which are not included because they are copyrighted by RedHat and only licensed when you buy RHEL. Also, CentOS users cannot tap into the RHEL update servers. You just have to supply the source code and not prevent anyone from doing whatever they want with it, including undercutting your price. Again, for the parts which are GPL'ed. Not everything in a distro is GPL'ed. -- Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Tampa, FL -- 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: z/Linux
Not exactly true. You can charge for LINUX, the question is will anyone pay for it. There is nothing in the GPL license that prevents you from making your own distribution and charging for it. You just have to supply the source code and not prevent anyone from doing whatever they want with it, including undercutting your price. That's what I thought I said. But, my point was that if SAS (or any other product) is ported to LINUX, you can charge whatever you want, and you DO NOT have to make the source code available. So, my question still stands. Why would SAS Institute not make a profit on z/LINUX SAS? PS: I'm aware of the terms and conditions of the GPL. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux
Because 1. The pricing scheme would be expected to be cheaper Why? Oracle is not cheaper under z/LINUX. 2. Therefore many would drop their z/OS (expensive) license They're already cheaper under UNIX Windows. 3. Thus SAS Institute total revenue might suffer. Might! NOT will. And, I believe the whole argument to be specious. SAS has already moved to 'cheaper' platforms, and I don't see SAS Institute going belly up! - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper than the same on dedicated Intel boxen. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State Univsersity -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:23 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: z/Linux Because 1. The pricing scheme would be expected to be cheaper Why? Oracle is not cheaper under z/LINUX. 2. Therefore many would drop their z/OS (expensive) license They're already cheaper under UNIX Windows. 3. Thus SAS Institute total revenue might suffer. Might! NOT will. And, I believe the whole argument to be specious. SAS has already moved to 'cheaper' platforms, and I don't see SAS Institute going belly up! - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper than the same on dedicated Intel boxen. Yes, you are correct. But, aside from being accurate, what does this have to do with SAS licensing, under z/LINUX, which doesn't exist, yet. My point was, ORACLE is not cheaper just because it runs under z/LINUX. It is still priced the same -- on a per CPU basis, which has nothing to do with the OS it runs under. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: z/Linux, Was SAS, now Oracle
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper than the same on dedicated Intel boxen. Yes, you are correct. But, aside from being accurate, what does this have to do with SAS licensing, under z/LINUX, which doesn't exist, yet. My point was, ORACLE is not cheaper just because it runs under z/LINUX. It is still priced the same -- on a per CPU basis, which has nothing to do with the OS it runs under. You're assuming that you can only run ONE copy of Linux on a CPU. Since you can run more than one, the net is that it's a lot cheaper to use Oracle on Linux on z than on the same horsepower of, say, Intel boxes. More than one site has justified Linux on z on this basis alone. -- 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
