- Original Message -
From: Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:18:42 -0500, Pinnacle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
... But Mike Wood, the lead
architect
@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
- Original Message -
From: Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:18:42 -0500, Pinnacle [EMAIL PROTECTED
Shane wrote:
[...]
The only problem I have had with CA-1 is CA's insistence on keeping the
same FMID when changing versions.
FWIW I'm in total agreement.
CA-1 are *wy* out in front of all the other CA product groups with
regard to SMP.
But they are still apparently constrained by corporate
I was called to task for venturing an opinion without substantiating it.
This was a reasonable criticism so here are some of my reasons for my TMS
preference.
RMM con:
RMM lack of retained customer fields, eg vendor id
Lack of ?inq? function ? ease of clist mitigates somewhat
Lack of report
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:09:51 -0500 Jack Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
:TMS con:
:Yet another product to add. Usually another smp zone
:?slight? lag in new products
Only if IBM isn't playing fair.
--
Binyamin Dissen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar
RMM pro:
Include with os BUT AT AN EXTRA COST
Quicker os and tape drive support. I doubt that. CA participates in Vendor
disclosure and hardware ESP programs, so they have access to the doc and
hardware and software before GA of new devices. It is probably rare that IBM
significantly beats
a huge background in CA-1 to RMM conversions, I would not hesitate to
convert RMM to CA-1 (hello, CA, are you listening?) More and more, the
choice between CA-1 and RMM comes down to business issues, not technical
issues.
Regards,
Tom Conley
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL
to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
I'll take RMM anyday.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu
- Original Message -
From: John Benik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape management
system. We have some systems that run CA-1
, 2007 5:24 PM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Cc: Schwarz, Barry A
Subject: RE: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Barry,
We NEVER would have a r11.0 PTF have a PRE of a r11.5 PTF. When we
supported both r11.0 and r11.5 (remember, r11.0 is no longer officially
supported), we always published both a r11.0
: 2007/02/09 Fri PM 01:30:53 CST
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
My apologies Russell, I phrased that badly. The actual problem was 11.0
PTFs without PRE or SUP for previously installed PTFs and the
recommended work-around was to install the 11.5 PTFs (issue
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 15:01 -0600, Russell Witt wrote:
I am so sorry that the level-1 tech did not explain himself clearly.
You ARE at r11.5 already. The 5 PTF's you listed as being missing from
the PRE/SUP list (QO75520, QO72923, QO72131...) ARE r11.5 PTF's that
you already have applied to
Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape management
system. We have some systems that run CA-1 and some that run RMM. At
first we stated that we wanted to go to CA-1. This seems to be what the
majority of people use. My personnel opinion I like CA-1 much better, I
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Benik
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape
by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
02/08/2007 04:18 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape management
system. We have
-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
02/08/2007 01:24 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1
: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape management
system. We have some systems that run CA-1 and some that run RMM. At
first we stated that we wanted to go to CA-1. This seems
I'll take RMM anyday.
- Original Message -
From: John Benik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
The only problem I have had with CA-1 is CA's insistence on keeping the
same
: Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
I'm one of those sys prog and I really dislike CA and have worked with
and installed both and RMM is awful. TMS is the standard that RMM tries to
imitate. Unless price is the issue, TMS wins.
My $0.02
well, if c/a ever puts ca-1 under datacom, that will make the choice REALLY
easy.
- Original Message -
From: John Benik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM
Well
21 matches
Mail list logo
