|
midrange.com
This is a management problem if they can't goose up the server to handle
the increased workload. A program compiling in batch in a separate
subsystem is not going to cause a lost order. An interactive compile is
another story. Can we spell "termination for cause"?
--
Paul Nelson
Arbor Solutions, Inc.
708-670-6978 Cell
pnelson@xxxxxxxxxx
-----midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Trevor Perry" <tperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 12/18/2006 11:24AM
Subject: Re: WDSC vs SEU RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than
Switch
Steve,
Within the last 12 months, I had a customer whose System i was seriously
underperforming. The fault was that their business had grown faster than
their server growth, and the disk arms were being overused. Their
applications were all slow - accounts receivable and payable were
delayed.
In one case, payroll was looking to be impacted. And order processing
was
very slow. All through this time, programmers were still compiling, and
thus, impacting the business. This was a real situation, and while the
phone
order entry was slow, it meant that the people waiting to order were not
being serviced in a timely manner. They lost orders.
Wouldn't it be ironic if some of those orders were lost because a
programmer
was compiling to check spelling mistakes?
Trevor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raby, Steve" <agnictsr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion rivendell.midrange.com"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: WDSC vs SEU RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than
Switch
> Trevor
>
> Sorry that is not what is said in that statement, plus impacted the
> business is not the same losing orders, nor is a job running a second
or
> two behind its normal finishing time going to impact a business in a
> detrimental way in any measurable form to my mind.
>
> You use the word discipline a lot, I do not think it means what you
think
> it means, what you really are saying is your idea of programming
practices
> may not be the same as other programmers, which is not the same as,
nor is
> using different practices equal to, sloppier programming. We all have
our
> own way of doing our job, that does not mean we should be put down for
it.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Trevor Perry
> Verzonden: maandag 18 december 2006 17:01
> Aan: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Onderwerp: Re: WDSC vs SEU RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than
> Switch
>
>
> Steve,
>
> If you have ever heard a developer complain because their compile was
too
> slow, and then do something about it - like move it to another job
queue,
> or
> change its run priority, or (mistakenly) its timeslice, then IT has
just
> impacted the business. When users complain about the server being
slow,
> and
> programmers are placing a priority on their work higher than the
users,
> then
> IT has just impacted the business.
>
> Sure, it happens less now we have more CPW. Good programming
discipline
> should (IMHO) ~not~ be about "more power = sloppier programming". Yet
it
> does.
>
> Trevor
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raby, Steve" <agnictsr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion rivendell.midrange.com"
> <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 8:05 AM
> Subject: WDSC vs SEU RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch
>
>
>>I am a newbie to WDSC and I am trying to use it exclusively, however
there
>>are things I find SEU better for, (cut and paste blocks of code for
>>example), but maybe that is due to the version we have and the fact I
>>don't
>>know b**ger all yet. :-)
>>
>> One thing that is annoying is that we are on 5.1.0. and the &*%^*&(^
>> thing
>> keeps falling over, and being a newbie I have yet to get into the
habit
>> of
>> periodically saving my changes, (is there a way to automate this?) so
I
>> have to keep re-doing hours of work. I am just getting back into
using it
>> after two weeks of exclusive SEU, because the thing fell over four
times
>> in one morning.
>>
>> We are on version 5.2 on the iSeries will the latest version of WDSC
work
>> on that? As we are losing the iSeries they are not bothered, it
seems,
>> about upgrading it to 5.4
>>
>> this comment bugged me a little...
>>
>> <One of the things that WDSc does is to take most of the development
>> <enviroment OFF the System i. Unless we have a development server,
>> chewing
>> <cycles for additional compiles because of undisciplined programming
>> <techniques can impact the business bottom line. WDSc can help that -
by
>> <using the PC as a development tool. What if an order is not taken,
>> because
>> <the CPU cycles are re-compiling because you forgot something in your
>> first
>> <or second or third or.... pass? Why not code with more discipline,
and
>> get
>> <it right earlier?
>>
>> In 25 years of coding in RPG I have never heard of a company losing
>> business because a programmer was compiling. Correct me if I am
wrong,
>> but
>> isn't that what the time slice is for? So EVERYTHING gets an equal
bite
>> at
>> the cherry? And as for doing a walkthrough to ensure no errors before
>> compilation are you saying that there were no bugs before we got
>> interactive programming instead of batch? As an operator on an ICL
1903
>> we
>> watched the same jobs come in every night for months before the
programs
>> were finally put live. Forgive me if I am wrong but the implication
is
>> that if you don't spend hours walking thru your code, (which could be
>> done
>> in minutes with the compiler) then you are not a good programmer.
>>
>> Just my thoughts
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
mailing
>> list
>> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
>> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
>> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
>> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>>
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
