R.S. wrote:
David Crayford wrote:
[...]
15 years ago I worked on one of the first mainframe DB2 data warehouse
systems in the UK. We used SP2 AIX boxes for the mining, and they were
very quick back then. I suppose it all depends on the z10 and how IBM
prices them...
They seem to be making
R.S. wrote:
David Crayford wrote:
[...]
SAP Business Suite is the same, no longer being ported to z/OS. It
seems that z/Linux is becoming a very strategic platform for both
vendors and IBM.
Or mainframe is less strategic for both...
(justification: it seems to be cheaper to use AIX
John McKown wrote:
Are you aware that Oracle on z/OS is functionally stabilized at release
10? I.e. the newer Oracle releases will not be ported to run under z/OS at
all. As of right now, release 10 remains supported on z/OS.
As another said, I've read of a number of z/Linux users using Oracle
John McKown wrote:
Does anybody know that this really does? I'm running a C++ program in batch.
Basically, it is a program which reads information from a network connection
and is writing it out to a tape dataset. I don't have the source. For those
interested, it is the todsn program in the Co:Z
:42 AM, John McKown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:16:53 +0800, David Crayford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CELHVnnn is an XPLINK condition handler. For example CELHV003 is the
XPLINK runtime environment. Im not familiar with CELHV002 but it could
be that the SSL hashes are a CPU hog
, 2008 at 9:52 AM, David Crayford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kirk Wolf wrote:
If you used LRECL=1, then you did have a record boundary of 1, so it
was doing fwrite() with a length of 1.
This is because todsn() always uses QSAM.
As it turns out, even with a rational DCB, the C library is more
expensive
Check out the CEE3ERP CWI in the LE vendor interfaces manual. It may
help you solve your problem...
Denis O'Sullivan wrote:
Thanks Peter,
Sure, LE must be using an ESTAE(X) to get control, and aim for a recovery to
be able to drive its own recovery architecture.
But in the non-recoverable
Howard Brazee wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:22:34 +0900, David Crayford
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For several reasons. Firstly, because your typical dynamically loaded
COBOL or HLASM program is monolithic with one entry point and a
parameter list. If you have lots of entry points you have
Steve Comstock wrote:
DLLs are overrated by people who are not aware of
how normal dynamic linkages work in z/OS. But one
must deal with them, since they are becoming more
and more common.
That depends on what language you code in. For C/C++ DLLs are a godsend.
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
