RE: Ready to scrap an AS/400

> re: pointers - are you saying that the tag bit maintenance, object
> validation, offset validation, and authority checking are done by NT and
> Unix?  I don't think so.  They don't have tag bits or authority bits on
> their pointers.  Perhaps I can put you in touch with the vendor who can
> demonstrate that identical C programs run at non-identical speeds and has
> been successfully doing so since 1996?  As I pointed out, I don't know
how
> to measure this except by running jobs side by side so I know that I am
> speculating.  I will listen to another potential explanation ...

Yes, generating pointer (with all validation, security, tags etc) is
certainly costs more.
But these should be relatively rare occurences in a well designed
application.
On the other side, if you have a pointer to array and use it to navigate
through array elements, then this kind of pointer arithmetic has the same
efficiency.
Basically it means, that particular characterictics of Unix or NT allow
people to write programs in particular style, which does not port well to
AS/400. This is considered a weakness of AS/400.
On the other hand, when well performing AS/400 program is ported elsewhere
and does not work well (again, because of architectural differences), this
again is considered as a weakness of AS/400 ?!

My point is that different architectures have different gotchas and in
general it does not make one or another "good" or "bad". They are just
different.
I can imagine only one way to overcome this fundamental problem once and
for all - choose some operating system. make it a world-wide standard and
make it a law. This will end forever these "operating system wars".

> re: WRKOBJLCK - Yep.  Now suppose that all the SQL is run by the same
> userID.  Every one of those five or ten thousand jobs servicing SQL via
ODBC
> are named QZDASOINIT/QUSER/xxxxxx - the user is the same on every job.
Each
> QZDASOINIT jobs corresponds with an ODBC data source running on some
client.

yes, all QZDASOINIT jobs have QUSER in their name. But when servicing
particulat client they are associated with a particular uer profile - and
this can be found relatively easily.
On the other hand, I have seen applications which run _all_ of their jobs
with a _single_ user profile.
This creates a lot of security problems (eg auditing is virtually useless),
so I guess everybody should avoid doing this.

Alexei Pytel


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---