Circa 1980 IBM delivered a new version of MVS that issued some instructions that the Amdahl model we (TRW Credit Data) ran on could not handle. Amdahl countered with some OS modifications that trapped every S0C1, examined it, and--if appropriate--simulated the action or NOOPed it. They also replaced the offending instruction with either a NOOP or a branch directly to the simulation routine. As the system ran, it became more efficient as S0C1 abends diminished in number.
There are ways for clever folks to make things work against formidable odds. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld Sounds like z/390. Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls. On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-promises-end-main > frame-migration-woes-with-software-defined-approach-3645686/ > seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed any > light that I can see. > > Consider statements like: > *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses, > mainframes are costly to maintain and difficult to support, > particularly due to the imminent retirement of those with knowledge of > a system’s inner workings.* > > OK, we can debate this (and have), but then: > *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is > moved from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it or > anything like that. We literally take the binary code that comes off > the mainframe environment,” Cresswell explained.* > > How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z > for a dev platform? > > Next graf says: > *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs > with contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe > container.”* Um, right. So that > L R3,540 Get TCB address > statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or > they're going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS? > > Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud? > > I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But the > lack of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux. > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
