On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:41:59 -0600, McKown, John <john.mck...@healthmarkets.com> wrote:
>Tom, > >Thank you very much for that information. I wonder why management around here has always been pushing the "don't use the mainframe unless you absolutely must" button. I.e. do more desk checking rather than a compile to find syntax errors. Perhaps there has been some miscommunication. Or I'm just stupid (a good possibility). > Here we decommissioned a production application that went to a toy box application that used IMS when it was on the mainframe. Although it went to production on the toy box, the users still wanted look up capability on the mainframe of their legacy data. They didn't push for this "upgrade to a more modern application", they loved the one they had, but I regress... Anyway we still facilitate lookup, we just moved the IMS data to a different LPAR and subsystem. Their data is there for their viewing, albeit on an LPAR that runs at less MSUs than production, thus saving us coin. We did the same thing with COBOL compiles, we do not allow compiles on our production LPAR, only test, and therefore we are not billed the higher MSU rating on the production LPAR. I can understand why management would want to avoid contention on a box (or even LPAR) against a customers SLA, but if it isn't running 100% all the time, then I say their view of "don't use the mainframe unless you absolutely must" is the stupid one, not 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
