[email protected] (Phil Smith) writes: > I did an internal Brown Bag a year or so ago, in which I outlined the > VM CNTRL/AUX/update theology, to a room full of bewildered-looking > distributed folks. I did preface it with "Obviously the following > isn't going to change how we do anything, but it might spark some > ideas down the road..."
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#52 32760? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#61 32760? part of the issue was that a lot of the internal folks did all their work on vm370 regardless of the platform they were programming for. I've periodically mentioned the IMS group being moved out of STL (because if was overflowing) to offsite bldg. and wouldn't tolerate remote 3270 since they were use to response of local channel attach vm370/cms 3270. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#55 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#62 there is also stories about JES2 doing all their programming in vm370/cms ... and having various problems importing to *clear* (?clear/caster?) for product release. old post of (much earlier) results of the introduction of channel attach 3274/3278 and comparing it to channel attach 3272/3277 (along with mvs/tso versus vm370/cms) ... aka mvs/tso system response was so large that the slow-down of going from 3272/3277 to 3274/3278 wasn't noticed (while 3274/3278 hardware latency processing was larger than vm370/cms system response plus 3272/3277 hardware latency combined). http://www.garlic.com/2001m.html#19 from the days when mvs/tso response was measured in second plus ... with all the reports about increase in human productivity with small sub-second response. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
