On Saturday, 10/14/2006 at 07:01 ZW3, Clark F Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that the majority of the messages that I reply to do not have
> the reply to set that way but rather are like Ted's, I suspect that it
> would be easier to have the listserv set it if it can. I read the
> news
On 12 Oct 2006 05:30:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>on 10/10/2006
> at 10:26 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>I moved from my Bell BlackBerry account to a YAHOO using POP3, in
>>June, because RIM re-engineered their support making a REPLYTO
What a terrible thing to say about one's wife !
Talk about a CPU hog!
Luckily, she doesn't read this list
--
Bruce A. Black
Senior Software Developer for FDR
Innovation Data Processing 973-890-7300
personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sales info: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tech support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web:
Posted with Don Deese's permission at the request of Mark Zelden with
thanks to Dave Thorn for following this topic up with Don as part of a
discussion at a recent Philly CMG meeting.
Chapter 1.7: Discretionary Goal Management
A problem existed when using discretionary goals prior to OS/390 Ve
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 10/11/2006
at 07:56 AM, "Chase, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>It's possible, but I would vote against it. There are times when
>somebody might want to receive replies to a post off-list, and
>setting REPLYTO is the easiest way to accomplish that.
That depends on
What a terrible thing to say about one's wife !
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Black
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
forgiv
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 10:47 -0400, Alan Altmark wrote:
> The best measurement of performance is the one you use to determine how
> much value you are getting from the box. You bought it for a reason. Are
> you getting the number of transactions per second from YOUR applications
> that you nee
I still like MIPS. I know, I'm getting old! I believe everything you say
about MIPS being meaningless or whatever, but I still think that if you are
looking at 3 or 4 models of CPUs, the MIPS rating gives you a good feel for
how fast they are, especially if they are all in the same processor g
forgive the history, but early in our marriage, my computer operator
wife (how we met is another story) got a job with a small insurance co
with a s/360-22 running some flavor of DOS (I think). She worked
overnight, and she loaded the card read, submitted the jobs, and took
out her novel. She
If you get a z/890 or the new z smaller machine, you can get from 1 to 4
processers at one of many different speed settings. I can't remember the
exact MIPS rating, but I think the new z is getting close to 400 MIPS, so
you can get 1 processor with almost 400 MIPS, or 2 or 3 or 4 with a total
Your reply prompted me to review my notes on when and why I removed
discretionary. I actually had discretionary in from 11/01 through 04. In
2004 we were literally over the edge with regards to capacity. There was
quite a bit of crying about how little, or none, resources disc. was
getting at t
On Tuesday, 10/10/2006 at 05:20 EST, "Ward, Mike S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The thing that gets me is the MIPS. You can go from a machine that has a
> single processor at 100 mips. To a processor that has 4 cpus at 100 mips
> each and they call it 400 mips. Depending on you workload type that
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 10/10/2006
at 05:20 PM, "Ward, Mike S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The thing that gets me is the MIPS. You can go from a machine that
>has a single processor at 100 mips. To a processor that has 4 cpus
>at 100 mips each and they call it 400 mips. Depending on you
>work
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 10/10/2006
at 10:26 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I moved from my Bell BlackBerry account to a YAHOO using POP3, in
>June, because RIM re-engineered their support making a REPLYTO
>mandatory for all BlackBerry ids.
And you can't figure out how to include
ng - although, being "listed", the
facade has been preserved.
- Original Message -
From: "Ted MacNEIL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 October, 2006 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
> ...
> H
This one got caught on the REPLY-TO
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
-Original Message-
From: "Chris Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:03:42
To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
Ted
For those reading this who do
On 11 Oct 2006 08:34:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/11/2006 10:21:09 A.M. Central
Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or you can do what I usually do: make sure my address
shows and simply request tha
-
Darren Evans-Young wrote:
Much further snippage...And
d this is why I have it set this way. If someone wants to set a specific
Reply-To: address, I want Listserv to leave it alone. Example: I send a
post to the list asking h
Ed Finnel wrote:
In a message dated 10/11/2006 10:21:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or you can do what I usually do: make sure my address shows and simply
request that replies be sent offlist.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Rick Fochtman wrote:
>Or you can do what I usually do: make sure my address shows and simply
>request that replies be sent offlist.
Unfortunately, Rick, that doesn't work. 99% hit reply, type their
response and send. I know, from the amount of rejections I get from
my excessi
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:08:23 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think that's the rub. How much can you afford in discretionary, if any.
>I played with disc. early on and found that since I different requirements
>for production batch workloads based on time zone and importance, and
>there was very
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Chase, John wrote:
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
>>
>>
>> Darren, is it possible to reconfigure IBM-Main to do that?
>
>It's possible, but I would vote against it. There are times when
>somebody might want to receive replies to a post off-lis
In a message dated 10/11/2006 10:21:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or you can do what I usually do: make sure my address shows and simply
request that replies be sent offlist.
>>
And SPAM!
--
F
-
Chase, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
As for the REPLYTO, there was a thread on it a while ago.
I moved from my Bell BlackBerry account to a YA
ent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
10/10/2006 05:47 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
Perhaps there was not enough discretionary work defined.
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS T
In a recent note, Chase, John said:
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:56:29 -0500
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> >
> > I only have this problem with IBM-Main.
> > All the other list serves I belong to do not honour the
> > REP
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
>
> As for the REPLYTO, there was a thread on it a while ago.
>
> I moved from my Bell BlackBerry account to a YAHOO using
> POP3, in June, because RIM re-engineered their support making
> a REPLYTO mand
Gentlemen,
I have been reading this thread, as z-worker I am, too interested and worried
about my job/future.
Obviously I have been thinking: What the hell 7,000 mips the good man was
talking about ?
How were configurated his fabric ? It was one datacentre ? Have they 2 for DR
purposes ?
H
>To a processor that has 4 cpus at 100 mips
each and they call it 400 mips.
No, they don't.
4 CPU's at x MIPS do not give you 4X MIPS.
The best you'll get is around 3.5X MIPS.
If you trust what MIPS (don't) mean.
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
-
>Back in the early 80s MVS 3.7, I believe (but cannot prove) the IPS and the
>dispatcher were not all together good at dispatching certain
tasks.
I started in 1981 with SP1.0 (called SP1, then).
The SRM had just been re-written.
I remember the hub-bub over SRB service units and long running sta
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
On Oct 9, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Jon Brock wrote:
> As a follow-up to the recent "Another BIG Mainframe Bites the
> Dust&quo
On Oct 10, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
One of the most interesting points that he brought up was the CPU
100 percent busy. We all know that is not necessarily bad. I am
not a perf cap person but am reasonably comfortable with running
my system(s) at that . Now 20 year ago that was
>Since you say "not in anyplace I worked at", did you set it up that way?
>Perhaps there was not enough discretionary work defined.
Hobson's choice.
Since 1981, I have worked for financial companies, a government ministry, IGS
Canada, and a wholesaler with tight margins.
We set it up that way b
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 07:44 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> 100% busy, by itself, has never been an issue.
> The SRM/WLM combo has been designed to run your processor at that level.
> It's when service degrades, is the issue.
>
> My point, is why is he happy at 60%?
> *IX and windows don't like 'high
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:41:50 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is needed for more productive work
>
>NOT in anyplace I worked at.
>If it's discretionary, it probably won't run.
Since you say "not in anyplace I worked at", did you set it up
that way? Perhaps there was not enough discret
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 20:41 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> >NOT in anyplace I worked at.
> If it's discretionary, it probably won't run.
FWIW *most* batch runs discretionary here. I've got some response-time
goals on a couple dozen quick-turnaround jobs, but in general I just
throw jobs at WLM and l
>z/OS workloads usually include discretionary work that uses any idle CPU, but
>can be delayed when the CPU is needed for more productive work
NOT in anyplace I worked at.
If it's discretionary, it probably won't run.
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
>One of the most interesting points that he brought up was the CPU 100 percent
>busy. We all know that is not necessarily bad. I am not a perf cap person but
>am reasonably comfortable with running my system(s) at that . Now 20 year ago
>that was not the case but in all reasonably current MVS sy
dictated by the selected software suite.
My $0.02
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Brock
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FW: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
..snip..
First of
"Veilleux, Jon L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
com>...
> " Not really. In order to get that famous 99.999% availability with a
> rock-solid SLA you need to run a data-sharing parallel sysplex -and-
you
> need to leave some whitespace on each image so there is "room
Behalf Of Craddock, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
> You are wrong here. z/OS workloads usually include discretionary work
> that uses any idle CPU, but can be delayed when the CPU is needed for
> m
> You are wrong here. z/OS workloads usually include discretionary work
> that uses any idle CPU, but can be delayed when the CPU is needed for
> more productive work. Just because a system is 100% busy doesn't mean
> that it cannot take on additional work.
Perhaps, but I count discretionary AS wh
" Not really. In order to get that famous 99.999% availability with a
rock-solid SLA you need to run a data-sharing parallel sysplex -and- you
need to leave some whitespace on each image so there is "room" to
accommodate workload shifts for planned and unplanned system/application
outages. "
You ar
As for the remarks from the gentleman from Samsung, very well written and
explained without apologies. He said it worked for them. Now how many
CEO's have seen that are contemplating the same thing?
Could part of the fear of big iron be the age of the caretakers along with
the burgeoning cost o
> >>One of the most interesting points that he brought up was the
> >>CPU 100 percent busy.
> >>We all know that is not necessarily bad. I am not a perf cap
> >>person but am reasonably comfortable with running my system(s)
> >>at that . Now 20 year ago that was not the case but in all
> >>reasonab
Hunkeler Peter (KIUK 3) wrote:
One of the most interesting points that he brought up was the
CPU 100 percent busy.
We all know that is not necessarily bad. I am not a perf cap
person but am reasonably comfortable with running my system(s)
at that . Now 20 year ago that was not the case but in a
>One of the most interesting points that he brought up was the
>CPU 100 percent busy.
>We all know that is not necessarily bad. I am not a perf cap
>person but am reasonably comfortable with running my system(s)
>at that . Now 20 year ago that was not the case but in all
>reasonably current MVS
On Oct 9, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Jon Brock wrote:
As a follow-up to the recent "Another BIG Mainframe Bites the
Dust" thread -- and apropos to a couple of other ongoing threads --
I received kind permission from Mr. Sangho Yoon to post on this
listserv the following email he sent
As a follow-up to the recent "Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust" thread
-- and apropos to a couple of other ongoing threads -- I received kind
permission from Mr. Sangho Yoon to post on this listserv the following email he
sent to me the other day. There is a lot to be ruminat
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/13/2006
at 10:29 AM, Clark F Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>IIRC Extended Algol was used as the Burroughs equivalent of Assembler
>for that series.
You're thinking of ESPOL or possibly DC ALGOL.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO pos
On 12 Sep 2006 19:04:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/11/2006
> at 02:36 PM, "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>The B5500 had similar structure and set of capabilities.
>
>There were major changes in architecture from the B5x00 to the
>B6x
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/11/2006
at 02:36 PM, "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The B5500 had similar structure and set of capabilities.
There were major changes in architecture from the B5x00 to the
B6x0/B7x0 line.
>It also had another processig mode - a string processing mod
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/11/2006
at 03:59 PM, Clark F Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I remember the 301, 3301 and 501. What was the 601?
24-bit instructions in 48-bit (plus parity and tags) word. Multilevel
indexing and indirect addressing.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg
The Telefunken machines I mentioned in the other post also were designed with
ALGOL in mind. Someone once called the TR4 a hardware representation of ALGOL.
I wouldn't go this far, but indeed there are lots of machine instructions
inspired by ALGOL logic (and ALGOL compiler's needs).
I have a
Telefunken TR4 and TR440, which had two tag bits for each 48 bit word
of storage. The bits where represented in the registers, too.
The meaning was
0 - binary floating point
1 - binary fixed point
2 - instructions
3 - other, like decimal or char
Some instructions, like Load (in German: B = Bring
Uh Oh! The dreaded ancient computer history thread has evolved again. And
to think that I started it too.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: "Clark F Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Burroughs: B6500, B6700, B7500, B7800
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:38:03 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>...
>For the B6500 and descendants in distinguished among, e.g., single
>precision, double precision, code and various types of descriptors.
>...
>>Requires a paradigm shift
>
>Much more than just that required by the tagging. T
On 11 Sep 2006 09:01:16 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/10/2006
> at 09:09 AM, Clark F Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>What models and was it other than just data and instruction?
>
>Burroughs: B6500, B6700, B7500, B7800, etc. The tag bits constrain
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/10/2006
at 01:04 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Didn't such tagging extend to data types, fixed vs. floating, so an
>attempt to perform a floating point operation on a fixed point field
>was detected as an error?
For the B6500 and descendants in dis
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/10/2006
at 09:09 AM, Clark F Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>What models and was it other than just data and instruction?
Burroughs: B6500, B6700, B7500, B7800, etc. The tag bits constrained
how a word was interpreted for both data and instructions.
RCA: CDP, 6
In a recent note, Anne & Lynn Wheeler said:
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:04:14 -0600
>
> one such simplification was that there was no hardware protection
> domains (i.e. supervisor/problem state differentiation). pl.8 compiler
> would generate perfect software ... and cp.r operating syste
In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said:
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:28:32 -0300
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/08/2006
>at 06:11 PM, Bernd Oppolzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >BTW, on older machines (not IBM) there were concepts like storage
> >tags, which allowed t
use of uninitialized variables even for binary values.
> I don't understand why these concepts never reached the market. This would
> make software development and testing easier and maybe cheaper.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#4 Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
http://www
On 9 Sep 2006 22:02:52 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/08/2006
> at 06:11 PM, Bernd Oppolzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>BTW, on older machines (not IBM) there were concepts like storage
>>tags, which allowed to detect the use of uninitialized variabl
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/08/2006
at 06:11 PM, Bernd Oppolzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>BTW, on older machines (not IBM) there were concepts like storage
>tags, which allowed to detect the use of uninitialized variables
>even for binary values. I don't understand why these concepts never
Im my opinion, there is one true fact about mainframe stability and decimal
arithmetic.
I'm not talking about hardware and so on, maybe the MFs are more stable
than the other platforms.
But software: the use of packed decimal arithmetic leads to more stable
software, because not every bit rep
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FW: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
REXX is the gold standard for decimal arithemtic but since it
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 08:16:39 -0400 "Veilleux, Jon L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:> REXX is the gold standard for decimal arithemtic but since it is
:>interpreted it is slower than COBOL.
Only if an appropriate NUMERIC DIGITS is specified.
--
Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.dissenso
07, 2006 10:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 20:16:09 -0300, Clark F Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2. I am saying that COBOL is required to deliver the same results on
>decimal arithmetic regardless of platform
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 20:16:09 -0300, Clark F Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2. I am saying that COBOL is required to deliver the same results on
>decimal arithmetic regardless of platform and presence or absence of
>decimal arithmetic on that platform. Thus the HP Superdomes in this
>case shou
On 7 Sep 2006 06:43:00 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:20:21 -0300, Clark F Morris
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Reliability is based on the
>>least reliable component. COBOL is required to generate code that
>>correctly (if slowly) handles decimal
On 7 Sep 2006 10:13:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>I hope that in their evaluation they considered the cost of feeding
>20,000 chickens vs the cost of a few good mainframe sysprogs... La
>sombra sabe!
The release said the replacement was only 2 HP Superdomes or whatever
their high
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I think a lot of it boils back down to what is needed. I'm not a
> huge fan of server technology (20,000 chickens pulling a plow) but
>
I hope that in their evaluation they considered the cost of feeding
20,000 chickens vs the cost of a few good mainframe sysprogs... La
sombra sabe!
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683
I think a lot of it boils back down to what is needed. I'm not a huge
fan of server technology (2
In a message dated 9/7/2006 12:02:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you drive a Mercedes, then, it shouldn't stop unexpectedly while your
Chevy Aveo can stop once a day and have to be restarted?
Cow muffins as Col. Potter would say.
>>
So much for homilies:
_
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel A. McLaughlin
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:02 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
>
>
>
>
>>>Well, of course outages are desirable! Imagine having to put in a full
day of work with no breaks for an outage. Why, the amount of RSI claims
will sky rocket! The BSOD is just Microsoft's way of making sure that
your health is protected from excessive, consecutive hours of work.
Besides, "the c
No, but he is making the very valid point that achiving 100% uptime may
not be fiscally sound. If it costs me $10 million to go from 99.9% to 99.999%
availability but it only buys me $1 million dollars worth of business, why
would I pay that money?
There is a problem when it c
I think a lot of it boils back down to what is needed. I'm not a huge fan
of server technology (20,000 chickens pulling a plow) but since we don't
run PROFS any longer, Locust notes is how I do e-mail.
It might be that vendor pricing is in the mix big time (I haven't read the
article) or that t
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:44 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: FW: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
>
>
>
> I
, 2006 11:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
You are showing your MF bias. Many believe that occasional outages and
reduced security levels are not only acceptable, but are to be expected.
Most of us know that the cost of availability rises
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
This bit stood out the most for me:
"According to Sangho Yoon, director of the information strategy team at
Samsung, the decision to mov
Hear, hear buy that man a beer!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/7/2006 11:03 AM >>>
I don't hope they have problems, but I do expect that things will
require a long time to settle down. I would also be willing to bet that the
xpected cost savings will not materialize, at least to the degree env
I don't hope they have problems, but I do expect that things will
require a long time to settle down. I would also be willing to bet that the
xpected cost savings will not materialize, at least to the degree envisioned.
It may have been the right business decision, or it may n
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:20:21 -0300, Clark F Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Reliability is based on the
>least reliable component. COBOL is required to generate code that
>correctly (if slowly) handles decimal
what???
Are you saying that COBOL code is unreliable?
that only cobol ca
t;To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
>
>
>Maybe we won't know the details, the horror stories from administration
>room.
>However we will see if the company survive. There are companies which
>got rid of mainframe and survived. It is
Lindy Mayfield wrote:
This bit stood out the most for me:
"According to Sangho Yoon, director of the information strategy team at Samsung, the
decision to move off Big Iron was strictly financial."
Moving their data warehousing and reporting systems to a superdome would make
some sense, but
ROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
>
>
> Maybe we won't know the details, the horror stories from administration
> room.
> However we will see if the comp
ould think reliability and security would be the top
priority for their operational systems.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bite
I find it strange that IBM has been trumpeting z/Linux, and something like
this happens - on HP/UX.
The homepage trumpets that they were showing Openframe (on Fujitsu kit) at
LinuxWorld.
Somebody juggling the balls at IBM seems to have dropped one.
Shane ...
-
McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
I just wonder if they
r come back!
James F. Smith
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of McKown, John
Sent: 07 September 2006 04:19
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
> -Original Message-
> From:
Google on 'Samsung Life Insurance Mainframe'
Oracle seems to state savings of $20+ million ANNUALLY.
TMaxSoft says $20+ million over 4 years.
BEA Systems seems to have started something when they were still on the
Mainframe with plans going through 2007 for some of the work.
TMaxSoft appears to h
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
> I jus
We will likely never know. If they do decide they made a mistake, there will
be no percentage in publicizing the fact.
Jon
I just wonder if they will experience the quarter closing where it takes
3-10 times longer than predicted. And then that first year end
closing...
Another thing I wonder
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kirk Talman
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
running nix servers w/o "admins". that's an inte
Isn't that what makes the open systems stuff so good, no people...;-)
Thanks,
Fletch
>
> Yeah, I saw that comment too, about running HP-UX without admins. I
> support both a superdome and the "mainframe" (z9BC) here -
> and the 'dome
> is physically twice the size of the z9, as well as
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pommier, Rex R.
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
>
>
> Yeah, I
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kirk Talman
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust
running nix servers w/o "admins". that's an interesting thought.
probably too much
running nix servers w/o "admins". that's an interesting thought.
probably too much "face" involved for someone to do before/after TCO.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 09/06/2006
03:27:07 PM:
> A 7,000 MIPS mainframe in Korea was recently replaced by Unix Boxes.
See:
> http://searchda
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
