On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:21:06 -0500, Knutson, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Danner had some similar pointed comments about this when we shared >our last round of Health Checker experiences in Tampa. See page 17. > >http://tinyurl.com/26nek7 > >http://shareew.prod.web.sba.com/client_files/callpapers/attach/SHARE_in_ >Tampa_Bay/S2858SK052846.pdf > Thanks Sam, So that's the story, eh? I was wondering because I did see the exception when I first IPLed 1.8 in my sandbox a couple of weeks ago. "might cause a performance hit"??? Isn't that what WSC and all those test environments are for? And if IBM knew that to begin with, that should have been in the check output. Maybe that will be part of the revision to the check. Haven't heard from Mark Thomen in a while on this list. Perhaps he would like a chance to comment / defend the reasons for this. So has anyone turned this trap on? Did you notice "a performance hit"? Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group: G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/archives/ibm-main.html
