On 1/22/2009 at 1:58 AM, Jack Woehr j...@well.com wrote:
-snip-
I've been looking at that paper Mark wrote about 500 Linux Servers and
thinking of trying to factor that into SMAPI and see what it would take
to implement.
Just for accuracy, that was Mike MacIsaac.
Mark Post
Mark Post wrote:
On 1/22/2009 at 1:58 AM, Jack Woehr j...@well.com wrote:
-snip-
I've been looking at that paper Mark wrote about 500 Linux Servers and
thinking of trying to factor that into SMAPI and see what it would take
to implement.
Just for accuracy, that was Mike MacIsaac.
Velocity Software is announcing zPRO, a portal for z/VM systems
management. Functionality includes provisioning/cloning, as well as
interfaces to many systems management functions for z/VM. More details
can be found at http://velocitysoftware.com/zpro.html;. zPRO will be
put up soon on our
Barton Robinson wrote:
Velocity Software is announcing zPRO, a portal for z/VM systems
management.
Barton, from the description on the cited page, you go well beyond
what SMAPI does (out of the box) ... Since it's a native app, do you
use SMAPI or do your own protocol or some mixture of same?
We use SMAPI partially. It's too slow to be really useful.
Jack Woehr wrote:
Barton Robinson wrote:
Velocity Software is announcing zPRO, a portal for z/VM systems
management.
Barton, from the description on the cited page, you go well beyond
what SMAPI does (out of the box) ... Since it's
Barton Robinson wrote:
We use SMAPI partially. It's too slow to be really useful.
It's useful to /me/! I'm having a great deal of fun with it :)
--
Jack J. Woehr# I run for public office from time to time. It's like
http://www.well.com/~jax # working out at the gym, you sweat a
Gonna qualify that at all, Barton? What's too slow to be 'really'
useful? SMAPI in general or certain functions? And since when did
usefulness necessarily have anything to do with speed?
;-)
Scott
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Barton Robinson
bar...@vm1.velocity-software.com wrote:
Scott Rohling wrote:
Gonna qualify that at all, Barton? What's too slow to be 'really'
useful? SMAPI in general or certain functions? And since when did
usefulness necessarily have anything to do with speed?
And shouldn't a moderately busy SMAPI server respond a bit quicker than
an
On 1/21/2009 at 3:52 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote:
-snip-
And since when did
usefulness necessarily have anything to do with speed?
Umm, remember The business value of sub-second response time? While
revolutionary for its time, I think the idea has been pretty firmly
Well - I did say 'necessarily'.. sure there's a value to speed, but it
doesn't 'necessarily' translate to 'usefulness'. Value comes in different
forms.
Would I consider, let's say - a system management tool that created a Linux
server in 30 seconds to be useful -- even if another can do it in
Scott Rohling wrote:
Anyway - I was mostly curious if SMAPI in general is 'too slow' or
particular functions and what those things might be - and what kind of
speed/response we're talking about. Just little more specification...
It's .. um ... a /little/ slow.
--
Jack J. Woehr# I
Scott Rohling wrote:
Anyway - I was mostly curious if SMAPI in general is 'too slow' or
particular functions and what those things might be - and what kind of
speed/response we're talking about. Just little more specification...
All kidding aside: seconds, sometimes many, for a busy query.
Scott Rohling wrote:
Well - I did say 'necessarily'.. sure there's a value to speed, but it
doesn't 'necessarily' translate to 'usefulness'. Value comes in different
forms.
Exactly. You can write an entire (somewhat slow) operations navigator
in SMAPI. Which is what I'm doing. Slowly :)
on a z9 IFL, SMAPI is painfully slow from what I've seen. And this is
not creating linux servers in 30 seconds - which would be disk
operation, not SMAPI.
Scott Rohling wrote:
Well - I did say 'necessarily'.. sure there's a value to speed, but it
doesn't 'necessarily' translate to
Barton Robinson wrote:
on a z9 IFL, SMAPI is painfully slow from what I've seen. And this is
not creating linux servers in 30 seconds - which would be disk
operation, not SMAPI.
Scott Rohling wrote:
Well - I did say 'necessarily'.. sure there's a value to speed, but it
doesn't 'necessarily'
Barton Robinson wrote:
on a z9 IFL, SMAPI is painfully slow from what I've seen. And this is
not creating linux servers in 30 seconds - which would be disk
operation, not SMAPI.
I've been looking at that paper Mark wrote about 500 Linux Servers and
thinking of trying to factor that into SMAPI
16 matches
Mail list logo
