Ed, Agreed, I did that on a worldwide basis..a lot of manual overhead
Scott ford www.identityforge.com from my IPAD 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Ed Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul, > > A LONG LONG time ago we had bumped in to the maxsuba of 255. > IBM almost simultaneously came out with a outrageously expensive add on > (memory was $5000 a month) to get rid of it. > My management said NFW to the cost and told me to live with it. We had to > start turning away customers and then the heat started and they hired a SNA > "pro" and he came up with a few suggestions - but mind you it was a 2 or 3 > month buffer before we had no other option. (His $$ should have gone for > bonuses to the networking staff, IMO). > Our people costs were high because it was trying to keep track of SNA paths > (of other users and ours) we finally bought the RTG software which helped us > but was another $100 (?) a month, Overall trying to keep disparate networks > in sync was an utter night mare. > I was/am a fan of SNA until it comes to (large) networks. > > Ed > >> On Nov 9, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:49:40 -0800, Jon Perryman wrote: >>> >>> ... sad that he's bringing others to the dark side. >>> ... >>> * z/OS: SNA existed long before TCP/IP was available. SNA was a robust, >>> reliable and secure communications methodology. Once TCP was became >>> available, we had the same situation as Betamax versus VHS. TCP won. >> There's always a reason. Rarely is it an analogue of Gresham's Law, >> to which one partisan attributed the triumph of UNIX over VMS ("Bad >> software drives out good!") Betamax succumbed to the greater capacity >> of VHS cartridges; a decisive advantage in the eyes of consumers at a >> tipping point in time despite the higher quality of Beta in professionals' >> view. For many years thereafter I saw Beta only in the kits of TV news >> reporters on location. I think VHS had caught up in quality and Beta >> in capacity, but both camps has too much capital investment to switch. >> >> So, why TCP/IP over SNA? >> >> o Price? >> >> o Openness of standards and implementations (price, again)? >> >> o Institutional bias against a perceived single-vendor solution >> (openness, again)? >> >> o Structured name space (thereby larger and more easily >> partitioned/distributed)? >> >> o DNS (name space, again)? >> >> Imagine an alterate universe without TCP/IP but an Internet >> very simlar to ours; Google; Facebook; Skype; iTunes; >> NetFlix; and all; all running (FSVO) smoothly on SNA. What >> modifications or extensions had to be made to SNA to >> accommodate this? >> >> -- gil >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
