What does this have to do with this thread??? On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...@garlic.com>wrote:
> scott_j_f...@yahoo.com (Scott Ford) writes: > > Just for my 2 cents worth, ran P390s in one environment attached to two > T1s. > > Attached to them we're 3800 laser printers and some 3274s we couldnt > replace. > > The mainframes were an hour plus away in NJ, and our printed output > queued up to the P390s. > > Everything worked like a champ. I am now on Z/Pdt z/os1.12 on a intel > > i7', everything s good, but are also only doing development. > > > > Scott ford > > www.identityforge.com > > re: > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#18 X86 server > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#19 X86 server > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#20 X86 server > > 1980 STL is bursting at the seams and they are moving 300 people from > IMS group to off-site bldg. the group tries remote 3270 support and find > it intolerable. I get con'ed into writing HYPERChannel support for use > as channel extender ... allowing them to put local channel-attached 3270 > controllers at the remote site. Runs over T1 channel on the *campus* > collins digital radio T3 microwave. They don't notice any change from > cms local 3270 controllers in STL (maintaining their subsecond response > ... back when mvs/tso people were claiming noody needed subsecond > response). System thruput actually improves ... issue is the > HYPERChannel A220s sitting on real channel have significantly lower > channel busy (for the same operation) than 3270 controllers ... total > system throughput improves 10-15% (the 3270 controller channel busy is > masked at the remote site). > > I try to get approval to release the software to customers ... which a > group in POK manages to block. That group was playing with some fiber > stuff (that eventually gets out as ESCON), and they are afraid if my > HYPERChannel support is released to customers ... it would interfer with > someday being able to get their fiber stuff out. As a result NSC has to > re-do my implementation from scratch. > > Roll forward several years, the 3090 product administrator tracks me > down. the 3090 channels were designed to have 3-5 channel checks > annually aggregate across the whole customer base. the industry service > that collects erep data shows that there have been an aggregate of 20 > channel checks the first year. > > Turns out they are at customers running 3800 over HYERPChannel channel > extender. In my original implementation ... if I had an unrecoverable > transmission error ... I would simulate channel check in the CSW ... for > the host software to go through its retry operation ... and the NSC > faithfully reproduced that in their implementation. After some amount of > toiling through error recovery code ... i determined that simulating > IFCC would have effectively the same result as channel check and got NSC > to update their implementation. > > as an aside, long ago and far away somebody in Boulder does build a > hardware channel emulator for ibm/pc which is used for 3800 testing. > > -- > virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
