> Andrew Rowley wrote:
> It's not cents per GB cheap
While I agree with everything you're saying, at the end of the day it's the
storage sysprog's decision. As with any z/OS sysprog, they make decisions that
programmers feel are abusive.
People are arguing about passion. If this were a
On 16/08/2023 6:17 am, Jon Perryman wrote:
This is absurd. Not all disk is cheap (e.g. GDPS). Not all data is valuable.
While a person may be expensive, not everything they do is of value to the
business and worth the hidden expenses.
It's not cents per GB PC cheap, but it's not 1990s
HSM has been able to back up at the file level (and recover, of course)
rather than an entire ZFS data set for some time now.
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 21:17, Jon Perryman wrote:
> Andrew Rowley wrote:
>
> > Disk space is cheap. Data is valuable. People are expensive.
>
>
> This is absurd. Not
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Steve Thompson [ste...@wkyr.net]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 4:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re:
Andrew Rowley wrote:
> Disk space is cheap. Data is valuable. People are expensive.
This is absurd. Not all disk is cheap (e.g. GDPS). Not all data is valuable.
While a person may be expensive, not everything they do is of value to the
business and worth the hidden expenses.
> I started on
On 15/08/2023 10:09 am, Jon Perryman wrote:
This is z/OS with SYSPROGS, not Unix with sysadmins where programmers have full
control to define reasonable. You keep asking the wrong question. Who (not
what) determines reasonable. Right or wrong, it is their job, not yours. If you
can't give up
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Steve Thompson [ste...@wkyr.net]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 4:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: USS Features
"Is it a non-west-coast specific mentality to ignore reality? Is
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 04:18:31 PM PDT, Grant Taylor wrote:
> How did the business learn that Kubernettes could meet business needs,
> much less decide that is what the business wanted to do without first
> testing / evaluating it?
> That initial testing of Kubernettes is the very type
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 03:36:47 PM PDT, Andrew Rowley
> wrote:
> where the storage admin has to be involved, but what is a reasonable value?
This is z/OS with SYSPROGS, not Unix with sysadmins where programmers have full
control to define reasonable. You keep asking the wrong
On 8/14/23 4:30 PM, Jon Perryman wrote:
We don't ask people to follow blindly. Instead, we don't give them
another option. JCL, VSAM, availability to specific products and more
ensure you are choosing wisely. Kurbernettes containers, cloud and more
are implemented by sysprogs in a manner that
On 14/08/2023 3:30 pm, Jon Perryman wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 04:33:24 PM PDT, Andrew Rowley
wrote:
It comes back to the question I asked earlier - how much space is it
reasonable to use *to do your job* before you have to get the storage
admin involved?
Since you put it that
, I had boss or two in my first thirty years (not all by any means) who
would occasionally say "Now, Bob, I want you to do this task, but I don't want
you to write a program to do it - just do it". From this you would be
justified in surmising that I like programming, and often write something
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 06:34:35 AM PDT, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> On 8/14/23 12:54 AM, Jon Perryman wrote:
>> You're confusing z/OS with Unix where all programmers are
>> systems programmers who can do anything they want.
> No, I'm not confusing z/OS with Unix.
> I'm speaking
Jon, maybe you didn't mean to but this is a bait-and-switch. You baited them
with "...for more control". When Mr Spiegel questioned that and asked for
specifics, you offered something else entirely: Unix is more challenging, and
there was a claim that it's superior.
---
Bob Bridges,
"Is it a non-west-coast specific mentality to ignore reality? Is
COBOL bringing in top computer professionals because of the
challenges it poses? "
How about the prestigious Schools telling their students that
COBOL is a dead or dying language? And indicating that Mainframes
are obsolete
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 03:37:18 AM PDT, Lionel B Dyck
> wrote:
> I’ve never heard that before in my 50+ years
I'm surprised that people don't hear about these skills gaps when they are
mentioned every couple years.
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 03:09:33 AM PDT, David Spiegel wrote:
> You said: "...Programmers leave z/OS for Unix in order to be in full control.
> I have not once heard any programmer leave for more control.
> Could this be a west-coast specific mentality? ... It would not be surprising.
On 8/14/23 12:54 AM, Jon Perryman wrote:
You're confusing z/OS with Unix where all programmers are
systems programmers who can do anything they want.
No, I'm not confusing z/OS with Unix.
I'm speaking agnosticly about any OS that will run on the platform;
z/OS, VM, z/TPF, or even Linux.
I’ve never heard that before in my 50+ years.
Lionel B. Dyck <
Website: www.lbdsoftware.com
Sent from my iPhone 12 Pro
Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden
> On Aug 14, 2023, at 5:09 AM,
Hi Jon,
You said: "...Programmers leave z/OS for Unix in order to be in full
control. Why do you think it's difficult to get z/OS programmers. ..."
I've been doing MVS Systems Programming for 40+ years and have not once
heard any programmer leave for more control.
Could this be a west-coast
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 06:04:55 PM PDT, Grant Taylor wrote:
> These statements cause me to pause. They seem somewhat antithetical to
> welcoming and encouraging people to use the mainframe / z/OS.
> Why is it absurd to allow everyone to do a Proof Of Concept on z/OS?
You're
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 04:33:24 PM PDT, Andrew Rowley
> wrote:
> It comes back to the question I asked earlier - how much space is it
> reasonable to use *to do your job* before you have to get the storage
> admin involved?
Since you put it that way, I've got to say are you insane.
On 8/7/23 10:11 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Instead of a home directory for each user with Documents,
etc. subdirectories there's a global Documents directory with
subdirectories for individual users.
Which version of Windows are you talking about. Did something MASSIVELY
change in Windows
On 8/7/23 9:56 AM, Jon Perryman wrote:
It's absurd to allow everyone to do Proof Of Concept on z/OS. Are
all POC vital to the business? Are POCs disruptive to the business?
These statements cause me to pause. They seem somewhat antithetical to
welcoming and encouraging people to use the
zfsadm shrink is faster and less disruptive. Nevertheless, shrinking is
not automatic like growing is (can be).
The fact that one can compress, decompress, encrypt, decrypt, grow, or
shrink zfs files in-place and in-use implies to me that the zfs developers
are pretty sharp.
sas
On Tue, Aug 8,
If a user greatly reduces their file usage, you can create a new home
directory, copy the remaining files over, and release the old directory.
If it's a separate z/OS file system, you get the space back.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 07:11 Jack Zukt wrote:
> As someone pointed out, it is only one more
As someone pointed out, it is only one more user file and I suppose that
you no not manage your space by restricting the number of user files. As it
has also been noticed, it can, and will be HSM migrated.
And when you delete a RACF userid the zfs file goes with all the others,
there is no USS
On 8/08/2023 12:56 am, Jon Perryman wrote:
It's absurd to allow everyone to do Proof Of Concept on z/OS. Are all POC vital to the
business? Are POCs disruptive to the business? "me" mentality ignores the
impact on everyone else. In this case, you're saying the storage admin is not impacted
On 8/08/2023 12:37 am, Jon Perryman wrote:
Automount was created specifically to address some filesystem
blemishes. There's a problem they needed to solved and they allowed
people to continue without the use of automount. For those who choose
automount, they decided that with all its faults,
We use automount with auto created ZFSs for each user. We set the size so
it won’t grow beyond our settings. Works great.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:57 AM Rick Troth wrote:
> > However it is not reality show or beauty contest, rather I'd like to
> see some real advantages of automount.
>
>
Obviously it is not big deal. Yes, automount or not-automount is not the
question (Hamlet). :-)
It is just my opinion that automount require some setup and provide no
value. And of course this is discussion forum, so I expect other
opinions or arguments. This is kind of learning opportunity,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:00:45 -0400, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>I appreciate that you haven't continued the conflation of "automount" with
>what we're really talking about, which is individual home filesystems.
>
I can hardly imagine not having a private home directory. It hardly matters
to me whether
done or you get ignored because it isn’t in the contract.
Not every shop has cooperative denizens or sharp-enough contract negotiators.
Peter
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jon
Perryman
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 6:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: USS Feature
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 05:56:59 AM PDT, Rick Troth
> wrote:
> storage admin might truly dislike: auto-create a USS filespace for each user.
Storage admins who don't like auto-create can create filespace by hand. Are you
saying auto-create does not meet the needs for all?
>
Every user on our system has dozens of "personal" files, ISPF-related,
DDIR, etc. One more is no big deal. And if a user blows up their home
filesystem, it's a minor issue (1 user), not a critical one (all users
affected). I also do not want to manage space usage in the filesystems.
I
Objection: I do not compare thousands of automounted filesystems to same
thousands of permanently mounted same filesystems.
Absolutely the opposite, I mean INSTEAD of thousands (I'd say dozens)
automounted filesystems I'd like to have ONE or few permanently mounted
filesystems. Caution: common
> However it is not reality show or beauty contest, rather I'd like to
see some real advantages of automount.
Last week I learned of a peculiar use of automount in z/OS which is
different from my experience and which a storage admin might truly
dislike: auto-create a (possibly large, in any
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 06:08:55 AM PDT, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
> I asked storage admin (myself) and heard NO. Automount changes nothing
> to what you described (and what is IMHO disputable, but this is
> different thread).
Clearly the storage admins you asked have never felt the pain
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 15:08:31 +0200, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>...
>However it is not reality show or beauty contest, rather I'd like to see
>some real advantages of automount.
>
At one time our site had an open-system NFS client so
users could access traditional MVS data sets on their
desktops.
W dniu 04.08.2023 o 22:04, Jon Perryman pisze:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 08:29:07 AM PDT, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
Regarding automount feature: IMHO it is less than useless.
While there is truth to what you say about automount, there are uses where
people find it useful because it
.
Peter
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jon
Perryman
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 6:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: USS Features
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 08:23:54 PM PDT, Andrew Rowley
> mailto:and...@blackhillsoftware.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 08:23:54 PM PDT, Andrew Rowley
> wrote:
>> Whatever. We use automount, and the "space" wasted is way too trivial to
>> worry about.
> If it's trivial, you're probably not using actually using it.
Unix people don't understand trivial for z/OS. z/OS files are
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 08:29:07 AM PDT, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
> Regarding automount feature: IMHO it is less than useless.
While there is truth to what you say about automount, there are uses where
people find it useful because it provides features that some customers need.
Most
Regarding automount feature: IMHO it is less than useless.
- It require some effort to establish and manage (including storage adm.)
- It wastes space, because even smallest empty home directory occupies
first extent of the ZFS/HFS.
- Space (extents) taken by some large files and then deleted is
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:43:38 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
>On 7/31/23 8:06 AM, Rick Troth wrote:
>> per-user automount does not necessarily waste space
>
>IMHO automount is completely independent of shared / separate per user
>disk space.
>
>> The thing which is mounted might be a sub-directory of
On 7/31/23 8:06 AM, Rick Troth wrote:
per-user automount does not necessarily waste space
IMHO automount is completely independent of shared / separate per user
disk space.
The thing which is mounted might be a sub-directory of a shared space.
Agreed.
Also, automount is not exclusively
per-user automount does not necessarily waste space
The thing which is mounted might be a sub-directory of a shared space.
Also, automount is not exclusively for user home directories. It's great
for selected program products.
-- R; <><
On 7/30/23 23:46, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 7/30/23
On 7/30/23 10:23 PM, Andrew Rowley wrote:
A low end laptop has 250GB available. How much space should a z/OS user
be able to use (to do their job) before they have to make a special
request to the storage management group? 10GB? 100GB?
Please forgive the ignorant question, but does z/OS
On 31/07/2023 10:59 am, Steve Smith wrote:
Whatever. We use automount, and the "space" wasted is way too trivial to
worry about. And HSM can magically free up home filesystem zfs files that
aren't used any more.
If it's trivial, you're probably not using actually using it.
A low end laptop
On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 6:51 PM Andrew Rowley
wrote:
> On 30/07/2023 2:28 am, Jon Perryman wrote:
> > ASK YOURSELF: Name the z/OS Unix feature that sort of fixes the
> fundamental design flaw with Unix filesystems just described?
> >
> > I suspect most people won't think about each user having a
50 matches
Mail list logo
