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

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


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

Steve Harmeson