Sorry, but your stated setup brings up some questions.
When you said "We also have a TOR and two other production CICS's
running in prod connected together by VTAM", it implies that you are
using ISC connectins, not MRO, for connecting CICSs in the same VSE. If
you are using ISC, you should change them to MRO. If you are actually
using MRO, then they are not really "connected together by VTAM".
Unless you are using ISC to connect CICSs in different VSEs, you could
possibly use the previously mentioned BSI product and eliminate VTAM.
(The product is an extension of their TN3270 server product and does
work with either vendors stack.) It even supports local non-SNA 3270
coax terminals for those last 'holdouts'.
Tony Thigpen
-----Original Message -----
From: Jones, Zachary
Sent: 04/29/2008 08:10 AM
Most systems programmer function are in ICCF, and in my shop (Kinda
Small) all of our production JCL. ICCF just runs in it's own CICS. So we
need VTAM no matter what right now.
We also have a TOR and two other production CICS's running in prod
connected together by VTAM.
At least on VSE I could see VTAM just merging into the cost of the
license just like RSCS has in z/VM 5.3.
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:51 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:35 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
>
> Interesting question.
>
> I was trying to explain VTAM to a relatively newbe a couple weeks ago.
>
> And I did come to the conclusion that since there are no new
> SNA hardware anymore, not only VTAM should be sunsetted, but
> we need to play to get rid of VTAM in the next few years.
>
> The problem still remains, that CICS takes to VTAM. CICS
> doesn't talk directly with IP terminals (like can be done
> with VM). So, until there is an IBM supplied solution, VTAM
> still needs to be supported and available in the VSE world.
> That is, until we are forced to send all of our screens thru
> a browser.
>
> Tom Duerbusch
The same applies to z/OS, but even worse in that TSO is required to
really do anything at least as far as "system maintenance" is required.
I don't know about VSE, but in z/OS, even with TCP/IP, it is VTAM which
is doing the actual I/O to the IP devices (well, at least with OSA
devices). Who designed this? As an "amusement", I've been trying to see
how much work I can do using z/OS's UNIX shell instead of TSO. The
answer is: "Not really very much."
As far as CICS is concerned, I can almost envision a TN3270 server
"built in" to CICS. Or perhaps a BMS/IP where BMS supports IP terminals
"directly" somehow. Of course, this will not be implemented by IBM
without a business case.
Is ICCF available via IP? Or is it even necessary? I'm not very VSE
literate.
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged
and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is
strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal
offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing
it.
Zachary Jones
Operations Systems Analyst
Northrop Grumman at
City Of Grand Rapids, Michigan
Office phone: 616-456-3456
