ca.portal.admin

administrivia

Discussion created by ca.portal.admin on Jan 25, 2006
Thanks Don for stating so eloquently the sentiment I struggled to express.
A few thoughts of my own:


as i remember, the current rules that guide idms-l (I may have actually
written a version of them myself) state that complaints about subject
matter of the list should be directed to the list owner/admin, NOT to the
list itself

this is not the list it was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago - the
industry has changed, we have changed, what mat or may not be appripriate
has (perhaps) changed


<personal rant>
a (what is perceived as) criticism about the list posted by a (from my own
observation) infrequent (or non-) participant on the list does not hold
much credibility to me . I would be much more potentially influenced by a
poster , such as Don, who has actively contributed to this list for most,
if not all, of its 16+ year history ...
</personal rant>


ps - when is release 17 due out? <grin>


Chris Hoelscher
IDMS & DB2 Database Administrator
Humana Inc
502-580-2538
choelscher@humana.com




The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive
this material/information in error, please contact the sender and delete or
destroy the material/information.

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: Performance Stats with and without Multitasking
"We used MT in the 12.0 release some time ago (now 15.0 but with 14.0
improvements we turned it off). The thru-put was much faster, sorry no
benchmarks but the users quit complaining of slow response and we had a
6 processor cpu. The only draw back I remember is when we had a 2
processor cpu if 1 of the CV's had a looping dialog/DC-COBOL program it
eat up 1 whole cpu and with 3 LPAR's running you knew about it right
away.

Steve Harmeson

Outcomes