The bottom line, as we all know, is that IBM wants to keep the margins
up on
engines running traditional workloads, while competing with cheaper iron
for
work that they perceive might otherwise be in danger of migrating there.
Basically says it all - even IBM admits it.
I do not speak for IBM
Timothy Sipples wrote:
The bottom line, as we all know, is that IBM wants to keep the margins
up on
engines running traditional workloads, while competing with cheaper iron
for
work that they perceive might otherwise be in danger of migrating there.
Basically says it all - even IBM
Steve,
I can answer that last part. I encouraged my daughter (Kristine Harper)
to go into mainframe software development. She majored in Computer
Science at University of Arizona and graduated this last summer with
twelve job offers.
She heads up the z/Next Gen project at SHARE, and they had
Tom Harper wrote:
Steve,
I can answer that last part. I encouraged my daughter (Kristine Harper)
to go into mainframe software development. She majored in Computer
Science at University of Arizona and graduated this last summer with
twelve job offers.
Tom, I met Kris at SHARE in Seattle. I'd
Steve,
I understand your dilemma, but I think you may be seeing just a part of
the picture. I think most companies developed their z/OS infrastructure
applications during the seventies and early eighties, and their cadre of
application developers is not large and shrinking, and that is what you
Hi Denis,
I was thinking about this a bit on the way home the other day. You are
obviously frustrated and none of what I suggest will be a silver bullet
but there are some things you can do if you have not already.
TUNE! Tuning the most heavily CPU intensive portion of those IMS
transactions
Seymour,
There could be other reasons it's shrinking, like most of the
infrastructure applications are essentially complete. That's exactly why
I mentioned it to Steve, because he may be mis-construing training needs
and platform viability.
Tom Harper
Seymour Metz said:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hi List,
thanks for the discussion.
To my information, if I connect to WLM as subsystem DB2 from my
application, why should it not be possible to run enclave SRBs in zIIP.
So IBM does not allow to use purchased processors and keeps on changing
microcode that I am not able to use some clever
snip
If that were possible I would have continued to investigate if SRBs
could be used in IMS transactions. Some of our IMS transactions do a
lot of scanning of in memory tables, which requires a lot of CPU. Since
this pieces of code just do memory work, I thought that were candidates
for
Denis, I am technician, not marketing, so I don't use right words etc,
but...
All these specialty engines are introduced to save you money. How much, it
depends. If it is good for your particular workload - it depends.
If you pay workload based charges and you start to use zAAP, you can see
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:50 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
The bottom line, as we all know, is that IBM wants to keep the margins up on
engines running traditional workloads, while competing with cheaper iron for
work that they perceive might otherwise be in danger of migrating there.
Basically
Hi Denis,
You cannot directly invoke an SRB from PL/I or COBOL so you would need
to call a routine installed into the system previously that would be an
authorized service provider to schedule an SRB for your problem state
PL/I or COBOL program. Why do you want to invoke an SRB? PL/I and
COBOL
The service calls to schedule an SRB rae only available from an assembler
routine. In addition, in order to schedule and SRB the caller must be
authorized, ie. APF authorized, running in a system key or supervisor state,
all attributes rarely assigned to COBOL or PL/I programs.
Wayne Driscoll
Hi List,
thanks for the responses so far.
It was just an idea, if there was a possibility to move some CPU
intensiv pieces of code out to the upcoming zIIP processors (requires
SRB envlave mode). In our shop the main cost driver is CPU.
Nevertheless, I assume there are more issues waiting, if
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Denis Gaebler
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for SRB sample in PL/I or COBOL
Hi List,
thanks for the responses so far.
It was
There are additional requirements for running on zIIP processors than simply
running in SRB mode. The SRB will have to be associated with a WLM enclave,
and it will need to be marked as zIIP eligible and as of yet, the API's do
to this have not been disclosed to the public by IBM. Remember that
Remember that zIIP processors were designed with DB2 in mind.
Wayne Driscoll
Product Developer
JME Software LLC
NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.
Fancy that. So was MVS/XA. :)
Todd
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
M - I was at a tech presentation by IBM a couple of weeks back.
Selection for dispatch on a zIIP is likely to be severely more limited
than Wayne intimates. From the IBM FAQ;
Eligible work that can be directed to the zIIP are portions of those
requests made from the application server, to the
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
requests made from the application server, to the host, via SQL calls
over a DRDA® over TCP/IP connection.
This a marketting decision to determine technical direction!
I can make remote procedure calls over SNA!
How would the zIIP know (or care)?
-
-teD
O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS!
19 matches
Mail list logo
