We couldn't do the CTC thing. We did have CTCs for reaching 3 of the
z/OS-plexes, but others are anywhere from 2000 to over 10,000 miles
away. TCPNJE was the only alternative that could be considered. I know
that there are probably hardware solutions; however, those were off of
the table from the very beginning.
VTAM was the first target for us because of the expense. The conversion
costs were minimal. Nothing new had to be purchased to accomplish its
removal, so every penny not spent on VTAM is a penny saved. Even the
time lost by having to concentrate of gathering documentation to support
a PMR pales when compared to the cost of VTAM.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
________________________________
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Allinson
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :-
> Z NET,QUICK
Couldn't be 'QUICK' enough for us. We managed to eliminate it
from VM by the middle of last year. We went back to using basic mode CTC
connections to z/OS until they got themselves up to 1.7 with the ability
to use TCPNJE.
The interesting thing was that it was the huge cost of VTAM that
was the main motivation for us. Given that the product was functionally
stabilised and needed virtually zero support for a number of years we
were struggling to see why.
Once we looked at VTAM, and eliminated it, this led us to look
at a number of other relatively high cost products that we have ways to
eliminate, replace or reduce. I am not saying that we would not have
looked at these anyway but the high cost of VTAM was the catalyst to
start looking.
Colin Allinson
Amadeus Data Processing GmbH
