> I don't know the details, but I know our "Tandems" go into a "store
> and forward" mode when anything on the mainframes slows down.
> That could be a processor down, CICS regions down, transaction
> failures, dasd contention, spin loops (Ok, that one hasn't happened
> lately), etc. I don't see their value lessening even if their function
> is needed less often.
The "front ends" need to be bulletproof because "back ends" are
not always available. This has nothing to do with whether the
front and back ends are Tandem or IBM. The front end and back
ends may even be on the same box. It's not necessarily that the
box becomes unavailable but, more likely, that the back end
application does -- sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
The important thing is that the front end can continue to service
transactions, stand in for the back end and SAF the results.
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 in town.
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:42:11 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: We're losing the battle
> To: [email protected]
>
> 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 details, but I know our "Tandems" go into a "store
> and forward" mode when anything on the mainframes slows down.
> That could be a processor down, CICS regions down, transaction
> failures, dasd contention, spin loops (Ok, that one hasn't happened
> lately), etc. I don't see their value lessening even if their function
> is needed less often.
>
> I also don't think the presence or absence of parallel Sysplex (or
> anything else relating to type of platform) can be singled out as
> the villian. It all depends on application and database design, etc.
> It doesn't mattter how many 9s worth of platform availability
> (hardware, operating system, transaction processors, network, etc.)
> if you have to regularly take a database offline for hours. And
> applications can be designed poorly on any platform.
>
> Pat O'Keefe
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_062008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
