Let me address a bunch of questions all at once (as much as I am allowed). To my knowledge at this point (as I am writing this) we do not have any lost source. It all matches. It all went through Y2K remediation.
We do have a problem with CICS/TS 5.1. We do have a problem with people not fixing their COBOL-II modules to compile with COBOL 4. And so when forced to do it because another department depends on their source... Well, it gets complicated. Now, the utility: We are in the process of replacing COBOL 4 w/ COBOL 5. The drop dead date has not been determined yet. So, we want this utility to produce output that is KNOWN to not cause a COBOL 5 compiler to have problems (Obviously, the utility is NOT a COBOL compiler). I was put in contact with one of the developers, and in my opinion they were actually clueless about COBOL 5. For those of you who think you can run VS/COBOL code forever -- as another person alluded to, RMODE24/AMODE24 code rather causes bottlenecks. It has caused us problems with CICS/TS 5.1. So what is the cost of staying with our COBOL code (COB-II and Ent. COBOL 4)? Well, as we have estimated, it would be the "cost" of an z/ec12 7xx General CPU (that we had to add to the system 1Q14). And if you are doing the rolling 4 hour.... We are looking at a reduction in MSUs by compiling with COBOL 5 ARCH(10) OPT(0) of at least 10%. And fixing some threadsafe issues for CICS. There comes a point where throwing money at hardware is no longer cost effective. I have a very different look at things now that I'm doing Cap & Tune and not development. I hope I have answered your questions, and justified my argument about cluelessness. Regards, Steve Thompson [Opinions expressed by this poster may not reflect those of poster's employer.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
