Pat O'Keefe writes:
>The improved SLA on the back-end is anything but "free". The
>improved SLAs come only when the applications are redesigned to
>take advantage of the improved availability of the underlying
>platforms. Multiple applications that share a redesigned
>component may get some sha
, and improve
> service levels.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008j.html#10 We're losing the battle
for some other topic drift ... a couple recent posts (from a.f.c) about
implementation of ATM machine support on VM/CMS platform in the 70s
(references to getting higher thruput than
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:03:20 +0900, Timothy Sipples
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>So if you improve the SLA for one class of applications, you're probably
>also improving it for others, and the others get the improvements
>essentially for free. ... Then it becomes tough for any
>business to ju
R.S. asks:
>.Gentlemen,
>I'm getting lost.
>What does it mean "front end switch"?
The common vernacular in this particular field is to describe that
front-end system as an "ATM switch" (for example). "Switch" should not be
taken *too* literally, though.
But "transaction processing" is a bit too s
ions but most
seem to do a lot more.
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:27:02 +0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>
> J R wrote:
> > This is not unique to Tandem. It's a function of "front end switche
J R wrote:
This is not unique to Tandem. It's a function of "front end switches".
[...]
Gentlemen,
I'm getting lost.
What does it mean "front end switch"?
IMHO "the switch" does AT LEAST the following:
- maintains all the communication to ATMs and POSes.
- checks the PIN and the quote
- maint
On 26 Jun 2008 08:43:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richards,
Robert B.) wrote:
>Some banks were trying to change off of Tandem, but a major banking
>software vendor bought an "up and coming" Linux on System z solution and
>essentially killed it in favor of their own, dated technology.
I just want
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of J R
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
This is not unique to Tandem. It's a function of "front end switches".
It's just that Tandem is the traditional platform of choice for thi
er alternatives.
As I said before, it's not to cover for unavailability of the IBM platform.
Rather, it's to stand-in for the unavailability of the "back end application",
regardless of what platform it's running on.
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:01:11 -0500
>
> I have no idea what's going on in the banking industry in general,;
> maybe reliance on Tandem is decreasing. But I see no move at this
> bank to move away from them. Our move towards higher availability
> has next to nothing to do with ATM support (Tandem's forte); it is
> driven by online ban
On 25 Jun 2008 12:42:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gibney, Dave) wrote:
> We now live in a world (z or Wintel or *nix) where downtime does not
>have to visibly happen. And customers are permitted to and should insist
>on 24/7 service. But the other fact is everyone (well almost) has a
>Window$ wo
On 25 Jun 2008 12:56:09 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
>Nothing will beat the MF in terms of overall performance.
That's like saying nothing will beat a cargo ship or train or 18
wheeler in terms of overall performance.
But the measure of "overall performance" depends on our goa
>...
>>Back in the day, Tandem was the dominant fault-tolerant platform.
>>However, for almost two decades, sysplex technology has given
>>mainframes fault tolerance that Tandem can only dream of.
>>So, it's not that Tandem's front end value is lessening but that
>>they are no longer the only game
--
On the one hand I hear that nothing beats the MF for reliability,
security, recoverability, and so on. Then I hear people telling me not
be so sure about that. So if these other platforms are up to MF levels,
and they are so much cheaper, why w
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
>
> Bruno.
>
> This thread, as with many on this topic, starts out with the
assumption
> that
> UNIX, LINUX and Windows Server Operating Systems, along with server
class
> hardware are no different to t
Bruno Sugliani wrote:
agreed 100%
i would add that our 19000 inhouse cobol programs do not leave much
alternative than to hope for a big life expectancy for our mainframe
In some cases the choice is that there is no choice . be it cobol or some
fancy software running only on some fancy OS for
Steve Comstock wrote:
[...]
So
if these other platforms are up to MF levels, and they
are so much cheaper, why would anyone stay with a
mainframe today?
Two reasons:
1. Applications they use run on mainframes only.
2. For the same reason why Englishmen drive on left side. The change is
risky a
agreed 100%
i would add that our 19000 inhouse cobol programs do not leave much
alternative than to hope for a big life expectancy for our mainframe
In some cases the choice is that there is no choice . be it cobol or some
fancy software running only on some fancy OS for some fancy department .
On 24 Jun 2008 21:41:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve
Comstock) wrote:
>What's the driving factor that gives mainframes any
>kind of real life expectancy, given that Windows and
>xNIX are now up to MF standards?
Evaluate your needs and wants, compare them with the costs involved -
just as you d
g significantly more reliable and other factors were
> increasingly becoming source of outages (planned, human mistakes,
> disturbances in localized geographical area).
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008j.html#16 We're losing the battle
old ACP/TPF related email from the period
http:/
uld say something like "five nines, excluding planned
> outages of up to [X] duration [Y] times per year.") If you're down, you're
> down.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#97 We're losing the battle
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#99 We're losing th
Ron Hawkins writes:
>Oh come on Richard. There are Banks all around the world that
>have never possessed a MF, and get along quite nicely with five
>nines availability on Unix clustered solutions.
Last I checked (which was very recently), exactly none of the top 50+ banks
are without mainframes, n
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:41 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Comstock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-snip-
> The problem I'm having, then, Ron, is identifying exactly
> where z/OS belongs today.
>
> On the one hand I hear that nothing beats the MF for
> reliability, security, recovera
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:21 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@sbcglobal.net>, Ron Hawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-snip-
> It gets even more ridiculous when Linux is suddenly an anointed HA OS simply
> because it will run on an IBM Mainframe, along with Solaris and pre-RISC
> AIX. I have
Ron Hawkins wrote:
Bruno.
This thread, as with many on this topic, starts out with the assumption that
UNIX, LINUX and Windows Server Operating Systems, along with server class
hardware are no different to the Home PC they loaded up with Windows XP in
order to play Warcraft, or the laptop they
Bruno.
This thread, as with many on this topic, starts out with the assumption that
UNIX, LINUX and Windows Server Operating Systems, along with server class
hardware are no different to the Home PC they loaded up with Windows XP in
order to play Warcraft, or the laptop they use for email and ter
m's front end value is lessening but that
they are no longer the only game in town.
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:42:11 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:17:25 +0900, Timothy Sipples
&g
- no entry for re-boot hill. Oh, two big mainframe projects I'm aware
> exceeded planned timeframe and budget.
> Only one ATM network is using mainframe.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#97 We're losing the battle
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#99 We're losin
Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:17:25 +0900, Timothy Sipples
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I agree with Chris. In my (more limited) experience, if HP NonStops are
used they're mainly as front-end switches at card network member
banks. And their use in this niche role is fading,
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:17:25 +0900, Timothy Sipples
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I agree with Chris. In my (more limited) experience, if HP NonStops are
>used they're mainly as front-end switches at card network member
>banks. And their use in this niche role is fading, ...
I don't know the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:35 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
Craddock, Chris wrote:
PC programmers don't have the tools they ne
[snip]
>
> In my experience, PC programmers simply cannot or will not
> perform any
> kind of post-mortem dump analysis. And, though Micro$oft operating
> systems appear to have the ability to take a "dump", I have never met
> anyone that knew how to, or cared to, read one. The only
> thing t
Craddock, Chris wrote:
RS said
1. It has little to do. There is something which we can call "IT
culture". PC environment (I mean human env) is more likely to
"restart-like", while mainframe environment is more likely "tight
controlled".
Of course, YMMV, this is generalization, etc. etc.
RS said
> 1. It has little to do. There is something which we can call "IT
> culture". PC environment (I mean human env) is more likely to
> "restart-like", while mainframe environment is more likely "tight
> controlled".
> Of course, YMMV, this is generalization, etc. etc.
[] Funny you should men
Craddock, Chris wrote:
[...]
It just has nothing much to do with "mainframer=wise" or "pfcsk=dumb".
It has a lot more to do with corporate policies and training and whether
or not the IT staff actually follows the rules. Human nature in other
words.
1. It has little to do. There is something w
Ted said
> I'm not blaming the tools!
> I'm blaming the pfcsk's.
> I have never seen a *ix person follow proper change control.
> I've seen mainframers do it for over 25 years.
>
> I'm not bashing PC's, nor did I in any of my responses.
> I bashed the (lack of) discipline of pfcsk's!
[] I have se
and it works ( and i tried it in
> AIX and z/OS and not much difference apart from the bill ) .
> Now i am sure that using DVD's in Z/os would slow down restoration , but
> then we would not think doing it .
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#97 We're losing the bat
On 24 Jun 2008 07:06:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wayne Driscoll)
wrote:
>In my experience, the UNIX and/or PC development teams were more likely to
>have change integration tools, as they had to deal with multiple development
>environments, while many mainframe products were developed using ISPF
Thank you Ron
I was feeling alone .
i have been sometimes pulling out applications from mainframe in my shop and
applied all good recipes from centralised processing
( dual computer rooms , dual replicated storage bays for dasds , dual
network, load balancing , dual tape robotics and even ESX
y own.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
On 23 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On 23 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>>] Pardon? You've never seen CVS? Or any of its zillions of commercial
>>and open source offspring? I've built entire (mainframe!) products using
>>these tools on PCs. And it wasn't even a hard decision to
>make. They're more fl
Quoting "Chase, John":
> "We're sorry, this video is no longer available."
Dunno mate, (still) works for me.
Go there and search for "zfs" (and "smash" if you need to).
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive ac
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Shane
>
> On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 10:55 -0500, gil wrote:
>
> > Is ZFS "reliable"?
> > ...
> > (No, not that "ZFS", the real one)
>
> On my meanderings I have just begun to look at OpenSolaris
> (principlly for ZFS an
Oh come on Richard. There are Banks all around the world that have never
possessed a MF, and get along quite nicely with five nines availability on
Unix clustered solutions.
We should not fool ourselves into thinking that Parallel Sysplex and GDPS
are the only HA clustered solutions in the market
Kirk Talman writes:
>The most common box used for "authorizations" is what used to be
>called Tandem.
Now called HP NonStop.
>Mainframes do much else. They stand at short arm's length to
>each other.
Chris Craddock replies:
>Tandems were used in many online banking applications as
>front-end swi
onday, June 23, 2008 8:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
>
> Ted said
> > >The change control for application development is probably better
on
> PC's
> >
> > This is so WRONG!
> >
> > I've worked wi
>] Pardon? You've never seen CVS? Or any of its zillions of commercial and
>open source offspring? I've built entire (mainframe!) products using these
>tools on PCs. And it wasn't even a hard decision to
make. They're more flexible and easier to use than anything I've used on TSO.
I may have nev
Ted said
> >The change control for application development is probably better on
PC's
>
> This is so WRONG!
>
> I've worked with Change Control/QA for 27+ years.
> I have never seen a package in use by PFCSK's.
> It seems to be hit or miss.
[] Pardon? You've never seen CVS? Or any of its zillion
>The change control for application development is probably better on PC's
This is so WRONG!
I've worked with Change Control/QA for 27+ years.
I have never seen a package in use by PFCSK's.
It seems to be hit or miss.
I've worked with change control applications on the mainframe since 1981
(PAN
On 23 Jun 2008 10:04:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>Agreed. There are statistics and damn statistics. Numbers can be made to
>say anything these days.
>
>Alternatives *are in the process of maturing*. They certainly are not
>t
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 10:55 -0500, gil wrote:
> Is ZFS "reliable"?
> ...
> (No, not that "ZFS", the real one)
On my meanderings I have just begun to look at OpenSolaris (principlly
for ZFS and dprobes - and zones). Bumped into a mention of the following
on a blog:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CN6i
Craddock, Chris wrote:
The most common box used for "authorizations" is what used to be
called
Tandem. Mainframes do much else. They stand at short arm's length to
each other.
[] Tandems were used in many online banking applications as
front-end switches. They didn't really process the tran
2008/6/23 Timothy Sipples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You can be darn sure the card approval service -- the GDPS-based (likely)
> application that approves or denies your card transaction -- is still
> working round the clock. So the mainframe is still working.
>
> Chances are the Web front end is not (
>So instead of spending money on 9 nines, spend it on more data centers.
More data centres contribute towards more nines (imo).
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruction
> The most common box used for "authorizations" is what used to be
called
> Tandem. Mainframes do much else. They stand at short arm's length to
> each other.
[] Tandems were used in many online banking applications as
front-end switches. They didn't really process the transactions beyond
queuei
The most common box used for "authorizations" is what used to be called
Tandem. Mainframes do much else. They stand at short arm's length to
each other.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/23/2008
04:36:22 AM:
> You can be darn sure the card approval service -- the GDPS-based
(likely
---
I use much more robust mechanisms for backup/restore on Windows, i.e.
IBM 3494 with 3592 drives or STK SL8500 with LTO4 and T1A.
Why don't you do it?
---
Facetious response noted. :-)
---
Rick Fochtman wrote:
--
It all depends on how such things are measured. Our dominance isn't as
pervasive as it once was, as alternatives have matured. Is that losing?
[...]
And let's face it,
backup/rest
Agreed. There are statistics and damn statistics. Numbers can be made to
say anything these days.
Alternatives *are in the process of maturing*. They certainly are not
there yet! I am amazed at the failure tolerance of distributed
applicati
--
This wasn't an option when the costs of each data center and the costs
of data synchronization between data centers was prohibitive, but times
change.
We are looking at floods, earthquakes, terrorism making the concept of a
single data ce
--
It all depends on how such things are measured. Our dominance isn't as
pervasive as it once was, as alternatives have matured. Is that losing?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: each platform has
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:21:52 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>I've read that Apple will be changing to a reliable file system with
>Snow Leopard. I haven't read that Microsoft will be ready with one
>soon.
>
What's "reliable"?
There were rumors (wishful thinking?) that Apple was considering
ZFS.
On 22 Jun 2008 13:36:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Kern)
wrote:
>Not all Federal data centers see any value in dinosaurs, even dinosaurs with
>penguins. Neither dinosaur nor penguin is as good as Windows.
>Management will suffer to have network infrastructure running under some
>form of lin
frame Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:13 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
On 22 Jun 2008 04:35:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richards,
Robert B.) wrote:
>I wouldn't say we are necessarily losin
On 22 Jun 2008 14:24:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gibney, Dave) wrote:
> The issue that needs addressing is: Why, when technology has reached our
> current level, is ANY customer visible downtime acceptable? Those "other
> components" could, with today's capability, be properly redundant and
>
On 22 Jun 2008 04:35:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richards,
Robert B.) wrote:
>I wouldn't say we are necessarily losing the battle.
It all depends on how such things are measured. Our dominance isn't
as pervasive as it once was, as alternatives have matured. Is that
losing?
> >>It seems that I thought major banks had Sysplexes behind them, I
guess
> >not! :(
> >Banks not only have SYSPLEXes most have GDPS also and are bound by
law
> >to very stringent down time restrictions. I doubt that your inability
to
> >access is due to the zOS backend systems. More likely a web
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:20:21 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>In a message dated 6/22/2008 12:46:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>It seems that I thought major banks had Sysplexes behind them, I guess
>not! :(
>Banks not only have SYSPLEXes most have G
>In a message dated 6/22/2008 12:46:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>It seems that I thought major banks had Sysplexes behind them, I guess
not! :(
Banks not only have SYSPLEXes most have GDPS also and are bound by law
to very stringent down time restrictions. I doubt t
You can be darn sure the card approval service -- the GDPS-based (likely)
application that approves or denies your card transaction -- is still
working round the clock. So the mainframe is still working.
Chances are the Web front end is not (yet) on the mainframe, and that might
be the problem. Th
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:40 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
>
> Gibney, Dave wrote:
> > I tried
Not all Federal data centers see any value in dinosaurs, even dinosaurs with
penguins. Neither dinosaur nor penguin is as good as Windows.
Management will suffer to have network infrastructure running under some
form of linux (Centos or Fedora, but nothing with a support contract). But
Webservers,
gn-all those bytes, so little time!
previous post (in this thread)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#97 We're losing the battle
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#99 We're losing the battle
mentioned a post in information security blog. the main part of that
particular blog threa
was made for us and the explotation depends of our skills.
Luis Miguel Martinez
Senior IT Specialist
--- El dom 22-jun-08, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
De:: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Asunto: Re: We're losing the battle
A: I
, because I easily "share" outages
> demanded by other components. In such case PS adds almost no value,
> and is not the factor of banking system availability.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#97 We're losing the battle
working on ha/cmp we looked at customer that r
In a message dated 6/22/2008 12:46:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that I thought major banks had Sysplexes behind them, I
guess not! :(
>>
They do, but my suspicion is that in multi-tiered model some things
got overlooked in the PCI/HIPPA redesign-all
Gibney, Dave wrote:
I tried to access two different credit card sites just now. Both
can't help due to system maintenance. One site announced maintenance
hours starting 2am, or one hour from when I started trying.
It seems that I thought major banks had Sysplexes behind them, I
guess
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] (Richards, Robert B.) writes:
> Most major banks that I am aware of do have parallel sysplexes in their
> data centers. I suspect that we are not
o fight!"
Bob
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 1:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: We're losing the battle
I tried to access two different credit card sites
I tried to access two different credit card sites just now. Both
can't help due to system maintenance. One site announced maintenance
hours starting 2am, or one hour from when I started trying.
It seems that I thought major banks had Sysplexes behind them, I
guess not! :(
80 matches
Mail list logo
