On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> wrote:
> Also curious about the "It also gives our end users the idea that z/OS is > incapable of easy to use data access" remark, John. > > If you're a keen or semi-keen observer of the IT world, relational > databases are extremely popular and continuing to be popular, but > non-relational databases (and data stores) are enjoying a robust > renaissance. One size does not fit all. > True. In a sense, VSAM KSDS could be touted as a basic NoSQL data store. > > I think it's always a good idea to take a look at the full range of > VSAM-related options: SYSB-II, VSAM Record-Level Sharing (RLS), and > Transactional VSAM (TVS). And, to anticipate a question, no, you do NOT > need multiple machines for either VSAM RLS or TVS. You don't even need more > than one z/OS LPAR -- a monoplex is sufficient. You do need to define and > to start a CFCC LPAR (or z/VM equivalent if applicable) if you don't have > one already -- otherwise known as a configuration task, and all approaches > require configuration tasks. That CFCC LPAR can either use (part of) a > general purpose engine or a CF engine, and it needs a bit of memory > allocated. The fact CFCC-related processing can run on a CF engine is a > good, very zIIP-like option to have available because all these approaches > incur some overhead. Whether it makes business sense to get a CF engine or > not depends on how much CFCC-related processing you'll have. Often yes it > does, but not always. The processing may grow with time as you use RLS or > TVS more (and/or use your CF for other things) -- yes, new functions often > get used and enjoyed -- so that decision can change over time, too. > > We don't have a CF. Therefore we don't have the ability to run VSAM TVS. In any case, VSAM TVS does not help end user access like, say, DB2 would. I.e. TVS won't allow a faster response when a user asks a question. We own our z9BC. And the company really wants to eliminate z/OS and the z entirely. They want a Windows monoculture because it is easier to manage. So they simply refuse to do anything which costs money on z/OS, preferring to use the small budget we have on Windows. Oh, and we just lost the CIO who was more of a business person. He liked z/OS and CICS because he never heard complaints about it being down, as he had for Windows servers. -- Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
