IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 12/10/2008 04:15:00 PM:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:49:19 -0500, Jim Mulder > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >...we consider those to be production systems, > >and the systems programming and operations is contracted out to > >IBM Global Services, and so we don't activate the traps on those > >systems. > > While not stated, I suspect IGS would see running with the traps > as a threat to the system integrity. Production work running into > unexpected residual data in storage or unexpected alignment is > nothing the out-sourcer - an application problem. But problems > as the ones Ed described in his experience with early 1.8 with the > traps turned on? Those would count against the out-sourcer's > up-time. > > This is another mark against out-sourcing that I had not thought of > before. It will take IBM longer to find and fix serious but subtle > bugs in the operating system. > > I assume many customers, not just ISVs, have been willing to cope > with lowered system integrity on non-critical systems in order to > help IBM debug problems. (I know that's the case in shops I've > worked.) It is probably harder to get an out-sourcer to agree with > this. Or, more likely, the customer would have to pay for that > lessened system integrity. It certainly would have to pay for the > extra work the out-sourced operations and system programming > staff would have to do when problems surface. I would prefer use "system reliability" or "system stability" instead of "system integrity" in the regard (as you did in the Subject line). We already use the term "system integrity" to mean something completely different. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
