l...@garlic.com (Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes: > ... which saw little uptake until sysplex ... except for IMS > hot-standby. The lack of uptake contributed to her not staying long ... > however also there were the re-occuring battles with the communication > group trying to force her into using SNA for loosely-coupled operation. > There would be periodic termporary truces where they said she could use > anything she wanted within the datacenter, but the communication group > owned everything that crossed the datacenter walls ... but they would > then resume their efforts to try and force her to use SNA.
actually IMS hot-standby had a different problem with SNA. While IMS hot-standby could be back up & operational in very short time ... in a configuration with 30k-60k terminals (sessions), it could take VTAM 2-3hrs to get all the sessions re-established (VTAM session establishment was real resource hog even on the largest processor configuration available from IBM). I was working with a baby-bell to turn out some work they had done for a 37x5 emulator, as a product. They had done a NCP emulator on Series/1 that had significantly more function and better performance that real 37x5. A separate feature was it also supported non-IBM, non-SNA systems old posts discussing implementation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70 Among other things, it told the host VTAM that all resources were cross-domain ... owned by some other VTAM ... when in fact they were "owned" by the distributed and redundant network infrastructure. RU traffic was also carried over real network. What interested IMS hot-standby was being able to create shadow sessions on the IMS hot-standby (in addition to the standard session on the active IMS system) ... so everything was immediately ready to go on the hot-standby. My objective was to ship initially on Series/1 but very quickly upgrade it to a (801/risc) RIOS chip implementation. The communcation group was well-known for all sort of FUD and corporate dirty tricks ... so with some help ... I got agreement from the largest 37x5 customer to completely fund the whole effort (the customer claimed being able to move to the new type1 product supported by IBM ... they would recoup total cost in less than a year). The communication group even tried a lot of FUD on my comparison numbers with the 3725 (see reference URLs), however the numbers came straight out of the communication group's 3725 configurator AID on the HONE system (some of the communication group responsible for much of the FUD didn't even know about their HONE configurator AIDs) ... misc. past posts mentioning HONE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone I was so confident that I even gave a detailed presentation at a fall SNA Architecture Review Board meeting. How the communication group finally was able to block the product can only be described as truth is greater than fiction. We also crossed the communication group in their battle against client/server and distributed computing when we came up with 3-tier networking architecture and were out pitching it to corporate executives. This is part of one such presentation which also contrasts 16mbit token-ring with 10mbit enet (which brought down a lot more of thier FUD on our heads) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002q.html#40 other past posts mentioning 3tier http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submnetwork.html#3tier -- 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
