Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion - VMS ; >Unless something changed recently the "distributed" definition for >CICS was multiple tasks running on the same hunk of big blue iron. It >didn't handle transactions with machines clustered between Germnay, >IL, Brazil, and France. If you define recently as 1977, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

  1. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    >Unless something changed recently the "distributed" definition for
    >CICS was multiple tasks running on the same hunk of big blue iron. It
    >didn't handle transactions with machines clustered between Germnay,
    >IL, Brazil, and France.


    If you define recently as 1977, yeah... otherwise no, CICS has handled
    distributed transactions and distributed processing for 30 years or so.



    >You mean the broker that is currently up for sale?

    That would be the London Stock Exchange- the Schwab "Dutch Auction" was
    pretty cool.

    -Paul




  2. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    >
    > If you define recently as 1977, yeah... otherwise no, CICS has handled
    > distributed transactions and distributed processing for 30 years or so.


    No it hasn't. Big Blue was "mono-iron" until the 90's. It doesn't
    count when you virtualize one box into 6, then "distribute"
    transactions across it.

    >
    > >You mean the broker that is currently up for sale?

    >
    > That would be the London Stock Exchange- the Schwab "Dutch Auction" was
    > pretty cool.


    Not even close. Schwab is/was one of the brokerage houses up for sale
    this year. Waterhouse was looking at buying them before they bought
    Ameritrade.


  3. RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: yyyc186 [mailto:yyyc186@hughes.net]
    > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:03 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > champion
    >
    > >
    > > If you define recently as 1977, yeah... otherwise no, CICS has

    > handled
    > > distributed transactions and distributed processing for 30 years or

    > so.
    >
    > No it hasn't. Big Blue was "mono-iron" until the 90's. It doesn't
    > count when you virtualize one box into 6, then "distribute"
    > transactions across it.
    >


    Where are you getting this information? It is simply wrong.

    CICS distributed transactions have been around since the 1970's,
    with mainframes connected over all sorts (by today's standards)
    ridiculously low bandwidth connections.


    > >
    > > >You mean the broker that is currently up for sale?

    > >
    > > That would be the London Stock Exchange- the Schwab "Dutch Auction"

    > was
    > > pretty cool.

    >
    > Not even close. Schwab is/was one of the brokerage houses up for sale
    > this year. Waterhouse was looking at buying them before they bought
    > Ameritrade.


    Last I looked Schwab was buying back all their own stock.



  4. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    Paul Raulerson wrote:
    > CICS distributed transactions have been around since the 1970's,
    > with mainframes connected over all sorts (by today's standards)
    > ridiculously low bandwidth connections.


    Is that really the case ? As of the early 1990s, you could still not
    copy files on SNA networks between nodes. You needed to do the
    equivalent of MIME a file then submit it as a batch job with 80 column
    cards being RJE submitted to the remote node which would then run a job
    to rebuild the dataset.

    I now that terminals could connect to a number of different machines
    through the network. But I do not think that CICS itself was
    distributed. When your terminal was connected to CICS on node-A, it ran
    transactions only via CICS on node A.

    I.E. CICS wasn't distributed. But the terminal infrastructure allowed
    finctionality similar to a decserver (connect to different services, but
    once connected to you talk to that service).

  5. RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    I copied files around on distributed mainframes back in the 1980's, over
    SNA, without any issue. I have no idea where this information is coming
    from...

    Admittedly, I would normally copy them with a batch job, but they would
    go as data streams over SNA, no problem.

    CICS transactions are definitely distributed - even in 1989, you could
    ship a transaction from remote instance to remote instance.

    Indeed, you could run CICS on *OS/2* and ship transactions to a mainframe.
    More, the mainframe could ship transactions *to the OS/2 CICS instance*.
    Or to servers that were not even CICS!

    Surely you realize if transactions can be automatically and seamlessly
    distributed
    across platforms with only trivial effort, it is even more trivial to do so
    across mainframes.
    And transaction routing can get really complex, with all sorts of issues
    like
    load balancing, federated data, cross instance security, etc.

    Not to say that VMS does not do this kind of thing with clustering.

    -Paul

    Below is some extra information that provides details not everyone would be
    interested in:

    In >> 1990 <<, distributed processing in CICS was available over all the
    communications
    methods, including MRO, LUTYPE 6.1, and APPC, as well as the older methods
    and
    TCPIP.

    Transaction routing was fully enabled between regions communicating under
    MRO
    or APPC. In other words, a terminal under one region can run programs and
    transactions under one or more *other* regions, regardless of where those
    regions are geographically or what OS those regions are hosted under. It
    didn't
    even require any special programming tricks.

    Function shipping could take place between any communicating regions.
    Function shipping
    simply meant that your data could reside on one or more regions other than
    the region
    your program or transaction was executing on. Remember, the program or
    transaction could
    be on any available region too, and not necessarily the ones that your data
    was on. The
    target region(s) could be running any communication methods.

    There were more capabilities. That was in 1990, and it *was not new then.*

    I assure you, current Transaction Server technology does a whole lot more.

    -Paul

    I just happened to have that information available, because I sold my very
    first CICS
    based software system, along with an IBM assisted hardware sale to run it
    on, on June 19,
    1990. I still have all the proposal materials. Never though I would
    reference them
    again though, and I am surprised the CD was even still readable!


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:05 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > champion
    >
    > Paul Raulerson wrote:
    > > CICS distributed transactions have been around since the 1970's,
    > > with mainframes connected over all sorts (by today's standards)
    > > ridiculously low bandwidth connections.

    >
    > Is that really the case ? As of the early 1990s, you could still not
    > copy files on SNA networks between nodes. You needed to do the
    > equivalent of MIME a file then submit it as a batch job with 80 column
    > cards being RJE submitted to the remote node which would then run a job
    > to rebuild the dataset.
    >
    > I now that terminals could connect to a number of different machines
    > through the network. But I do not think that CICS itself was
    > distributed. When your terminal was connected to CICS on node-A, it ran
    > transactions only via CICS on node A.
    >
    > I.E. CICS wasn't distributed. But the terminal infrastructure allowed
    > finctionality similar to a decserver (connect to different services,
    > but
    > once connected to you talk to that service).



+ Reply to Thread