BINARY order of magnitude? :)
Bob Lawrence
DBA
Boscovs Dept Stores LLC
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'An
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:34:48 -0400, Phil Smith III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You are saying that XP is four orders of magnitude more stable than 3.1?
>>That means on the order of 10,000 times better. It's not.
>
>Yeah yeah, ok, not a full order of magnitude but you knew what I meant.
>Sheesh.
Tom_Marchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>You are saying that XP is four orders of magnitude more stable than 3.1?
>That means on the order of 10,000 times better. It's not.
Yeah yeah, ok, not a full order of magnitude but you knew what I meant. Sheesh.
...phsiii
--
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:36:52 -0400, Phil Smith III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>... XP is an order of magnitude more
>stable than 2000 which was an order of magnitude more stable than 98
>which was an order of magnitude more stable than 95 which was an order
>of magnitude more stable than 3.1
In this whole discussion, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> nailed the key,
IMHO, when he wrote:
>...when a mainframe goes out the door it's because ... the *users*
>abandoned it in favor of alternatives that are perceived as "good enough".
That's the real issue. Five-nines uptime? In a world
Actually, your only half right, since half the calls are incoming, although
your percentage may vary.
(Hey - its Friday)
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: "David Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Every time you pick u
John's point at the start of this thread is one that should be noted well.
These machines we administer have capability that is rarely fully realized.
So what is the answer to this dilemna ??? Do we wait to read about your
machine being retired in favor of one that has more blinking lights ??
John
I don't think the Reboot Hill site has been updated this decade. I
looked briefly at it, and I'm pretty sure that it is the same stuff
that's been there for a long time. I may be wrong, if so please let me
know.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
414-475-7434
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- O
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:32 -0400, Thomp
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:32 -0400, Thompson, Steve (SCI TW) wrote:
> BTW - I keep telling managers, my job is to make IT BORING.
Yes, that's our job -- but it's terrible PR.
Every time you pick up a telephone handset and hold it to your ear
there's dial tone. It's a constant, something you expec
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:33 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . .
Whatever happened to parallel testing as well? When we roll up a new Z/OS,
we have to test it, retest it, and then review results for accuracy. If
Appl X is to be moved to the server farm (chicken coop) then it ought to
have to be proven to be better by parallel testing with actual users doing
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
Jon, I think z/OS sysprogs shoul
>>"I own 60 servers"<< or am I owned by 60 servers.
Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL
On Friday, 09/08/2006 at 10:38 AST, "Veilleux, Jon L"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mainframe sysprogs mostly suffer from bad press for doing their jobs
> very well. Users want to be able to do whatever they want whenever they
> want to. This may seem like goodness to one end user, but in the real
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of john gilmore
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Fatuities (was 'Another BIG mainframe . . . ')
>More interesting than this loss have been
More interesting than this loss have been the reactions to it.
They have included the usual chestnuts: floating-point arithmetic yields
rounded values that are unusable in business environments; UNIX has an
unusably low MTBF and z/OS MVS a commendably high one; the care and feeding
of 10,000 c
17 matches
Mail list logo
