On Jun 3, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Knutson, Sam wrote:
Hi,
I have been part of the discussion that Brian mentioned and in my
opinion IBM is taking the issue of Availability and Functional
Requirements for IBMLink seriously. They have acknowledged gaps and
moved to address them.
The MVS Program communicated clearly to IBM that Availability is the
single greatest requirement for IBMLink. We hope to continue that
dialog with the IBMLink team who were invited to come to SHARE. If IBM
has problems you can be sure they will hear about it from customers
directly too. This was an issue on which our site communicated
directly
to IBM as well as through the SHARE MVS Program.
I like 3270 but hanging onto beyond reason doesn't make sense. IBM
needs to deliver new function and there are sound reasons for them to
want to upgrade and maintain one system not two.
Did it occur to you that the new function we want may at times be
impaired by the requirement for IBM to support two different front
ends?
We need to use ResourceLink, ESR, ShopzSeries and other IBM systems
that
never had 3270 interfaces in our day to day support tasks. We
open new
System z and distributed PMRs every day and make heavy use of IBM
electronic support for research, software delivery, hardware
management,
and software support. We won't be missing the 3270 interface....
much.
If you have a problem call the IBMLink Help Desk at 800-543-3912 or
use
the Feedback function so IBM knows. If you have suggestions on how to
make IBMLink better (enhancement request) please submit a Feedback
too.
What I have heard leads me to believe this issue has gotten executive
level attention at IBM and that if outages do occur IBM will devote
appropriate resources to make sure they are not recurring.
OCO was a sea change event this is just a little continued evolution.
So evolve! I worry about how IBM is helping me address improving
availability, being cost competitive (real and perceived) with
Windows,
Unix, Linux, scale my z/OS workloads to deal with less predictable
workloads coming from the Interweb, and resolve issues that constraint
scalability without compromising compatibility. Let them sweat the
big
stuff which includes making support systems like IBMLink HIGHLY
AVAILABLE. As 3270 has gone away I hope to see they get that
Availability thing right on the HTTP interface.
Maybe everyone should be jumping up and down to get CA, BMC, and other
mission critical vendors to implement a 3270 interface to their
problem
management systems:-)
Best Regards,
Sam Knutson, GEICO
System z Performance and Availability Management
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(office) 301.986.3574
(cell) 301.996.1318
"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by
drawbacks and discomforts." -- Arnold Bennett
Sam:
There are different issues for each vendor. I think that the vast
majority of the people on IBM-MAIN (and other sysprogs) devote the
majority of their time to IBM problems(issues). While CA (and others)
have a wide spread audience on here, its a straight forward majority
depend on IBMLINK to do their jobs on a *DAILY* basis. We are
constant bombarded with stories of MS opsys taking over for IBM. Yet
for the most part IBM's MVS is so far and above the other OPSYS that
it is painfully obvious (at least to me) that it got there because
(us and IBM) have learned over the years that we have a joint
mission in life and that is to make IBM's OPSYS the best there is
anywhere. Yet we hear UNIX and MS opsys is taking us over, it is
partially our fault (sysprogs and IBM) for not telling our management
on at least a weekly (or monthly) basis on how we are improving
availability and dependability by our (or IBM's ) code and daily
housekeeping of the OPSYS. One of the key tools is IBMLINK. Without
that tool our productivity is greatly reduced.
I was around when there wasn't an IBMLINK and spent way too much time
going through microfiche and doing manual searches. I remember when
INFOSYS first came out It was a godsend yes it was at times awkward
to use and a PITA to load the DB. But all in all it was a leap
forward. IBMLINK, IMO was another leap forward. I was so tired of
waiting to talk to a person on a phone and we were almost totally
reliant on that person to do part of our job. For the most part they
did a reasonably good job on our behalf and at times going above and
beyond to us (sysprogs) out. They helped make IBM a leader in
problem resolution as their invariably sent us to the right queue.
IBMLINK took a level 1 away and made us do their job, it was a shame
(in some ways) as they knew a lot of tricks that we (usually) did not
know about and it was a step backwards in someways.
We (IBM & sysprogs) could not have made MVS the premier OPSYS in the
world without IBMLINK. So when it doesn't work for what ever reason
(reliability or 3270 consistency) we are unable to do our jobs in a
timely or efficient manner. Everyone suffers, the customer, the end
user, IBM, just plain everyone. I think what galls everyone, IBM
(for the most part) has made the ability to run (most) programs that
were written 40 years ago without recompiles or relinks and then to
say 3270 is part of the issue of why they are no longer (as)
reliable. COMPATIBILITY has been IBM's greatest "claim" over the
years and now they are crying crocodile tears about 3270. If IBM was
truly committed to compatibility we would probably not see these
types of issues on IBMLINK today.
That should have been JOB one with IBMLINK compatibility. IBM broke
(is breaking?) the commitment. IBM has broken other "promises" with
other products, so it looks like the pc weenies have won. Sit back
its going to be a bumpy ride down hill.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
