Subject:	-bks- Yoo-Hoo, they're doing it again. DFHSM Y2k expiration date
Date:	1999/09/02
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

Yoo-hoo Pollies, the mainframe group is at it again.  Since Banks and the Fortune 500 live and die by mainframes, I guess "Banks Get It."   On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:12:38, Kenneth.W.Leidner@PMUSA.COM (Leidner, Kenneth) wrote:   > We have DFHSM as an EDM with CA1, so the question is still back to what > DFHSM does. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. Todd Burrell [SMTP:tburrell@HARLAND.NET] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:20 AM > > To:  IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > > Subject:      Re: DFHSM Y2k expiration date > > > > This date is actually 99365, and I believe that IBM has code in place to > > ignore this as an 'actual' expiration date.  I know that with CA1, it > > marks > > these types of tapes as permanent retention, and in the case of HSM, CA1 > > will not expire the tape until HSM releases the tape provided you have > > setup HSM as EDM...   "Question,  I believe," clearly no problems with Y2K?  Everything's fine?   Here's the deal.  Todd and Ken knock around terms like DFHHSM, CA1, EDM. They are mainframers discussing storage management and automated data archival systems.   This is a fundamental capability, essential to smooth operation, and critical for data integrety.   The fact that with 121 days left, they are discussing Y2K vulnerbility means that their shop hasn't been testing across the line.  They don't know means that their company will slam against the wall and whatever happens will happen.   Even more ominously, there are others discussing the same question. They don't know means they haven't been running tests.   Weigh this report against Kosky and the glazed-eye brigade screaming, "It's FIXED! I HAVE COMPLIANCE LETTERS!"   Well no.  It's not fixed.  The WRP members have my assessment of firms that are done.  There are a few companies that have done the work but for the most part, large companies will be in internal chaos because of Y2K problems.   I have some ideas of how to speed up the repairs and would like to hear from others who are thinking along these lines.  How are we going to get ourselves out of this mess?  Drop me an email if you are working the fix after failure issue.   cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html

Subject:	-bks- Yoo-Hoo, they're doing it again. DFHSM Y2k expiration date
Date:	1999/09/02
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

Yoo-hoo Pollies, the mainframe group is at it again.  Since Banks and the Fortune 500 live and die by mainframes, I guess "Banks Get It."   On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:12:38, Kenneth.W.Leidner@PMUSA.COM (Leidner, Kenneth) wrote:   > We have DFHSM as an EDM with CA1, so the question is still back to what > DFHSM does. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. Todd Burrell [SMTP:tburrell@HARLAND.NET] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:20 AM > > To:  IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > > Subject:      Re: DFHSM Y2k expiration date > > > > This date is actually 99365, and I believe that IBM has code in place to > > ignore this as an 'actual' expiration date.  I know that with CA1, it > > marks > > these types of tapes as permanent retention, and in the case of HSM, CA1 > > will not expire the tape until HSM releases the tape provided you have > > setup HSM as EDM...   "Question,  I believe," clearly no problems with Y2K?  Everything's fine?   Here's the deal.  Todd and Ken knock around terms like DFHHSM, CA1, EDM. They are mainframers discussing storage management and automated data archival systems.   This is a fundamental capability, essential to smooth operation, and critical for data integrety.   The fact that with 121 days left, they are discussing Y2K vulnerbility means that their shop hasn't been testing across the line.  They don't know means that their company will slam against the wall and whatever happens will happen.   Even more ominously, there are others discussing the same question. They don't know means they haven't been running tests.   Weigh this report against Kosky and the glazed-eye brigade screaming, "It's FIXED! I HAVE COMPLIANCE LETTERS!"   Well no.  It's not fixed.  The WRP members have my assessment of firms that are done.  There are a few companies that have done the work but for the most part, large companies will be in internal chaos because of Y2K problems.   I have some ideas of how to speed up the repairs and would like to hear from others who are thinking along these lines.  How are we going to get ourselves out of this mess?  Drop me an email if you are working the fix after failure issue.   cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html

-- a (a@a.a), September 02, 1999

Answers

Subject:	-bks? Could it be Jo Anne? Was: Scratch Tapes Being Depleted
Date:	1999/09/02
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

Could it be...  Jo Anne?   On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:23:35, adam@s iu.edu (Adam Floro) wrote:   > Hello, everybody... > > We are a CA1 shop and have we got a problem. > > Our operations manager has informed us that our > scratch tape pool is slowly going down.  Most (if > not all) tape datasets are under catalog control. > > I'm not sure where to start debugging this problem. > > Are there any CA1 gurus out there that could > offer some sage advice? > > Much appreciated... > > Adam Floro > Southern Illinois University Carbondale > adam@s iu.edu   I don't think so but this is interesting.  Hey, we're losing data???   Mainframes, you gotta love em.   give up -bks-?   cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/curr ent.html   

-- a (a@a.a), September 02, 1999.

So, although 'a' somehow 'forgets' to mention this, -bks- responded with lots of quotes from the mainframe thread this came from. One mainframer after another expressed mild amusement/boredom over the y2k issues. No big deal, nobody was the least bit worried.

And Hamasaki replied to -bks- by saying essentially that all mainframers who weren't as worried as he is are clueless! The whole marching band is out of step except Cory!

About as slam-dunk a win for -bks- as could be imagined. But 'a' somehow missed that part. Once again, 'a' scrapes his 'designated winner' off the mat and holds his unconscious arm in the air.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 02, 1999.

Actually, Cory isn't the only "mainframer" who is deeply saddened by the state of the average mainframe...I must agree with his assessment. Software (operating system) maintenance is rarely done when the patches arrive...usually later so that the system programmer can not install the patches which make things worse. You don't want to run a production shop on the leading edge...it goes down too often! That conservatism will work against mainframe shops for Y2K.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 02, 1999.

Mad Monk:

Why would y2k patches be any less likely to be "negative enhancements" than any others? Maybe slamming in y2k fixes without waiting to see if the pioneers get arrows in the back might still be a poor idea?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 02, 1999.

a,

keep 'em coming, I have a great deal of respect for you, cory and those that can read between the bullshit, an no respect whatsoever for the likes of flint, kks, dechert et al.

it would be nice to say I told you so in January, but by then it won't be funny, no kudos to be earned with people dying left right and centre...

but the fools will know who they are WON'T THEY FLINT???????

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 02, 1999.

I've posted this warning once before, and I'll post it once again. A company, thank god, that I formerly worked for, which just happens to be in the top 10 of privately held transporation companies in the US, has a very weird system for their IBM shop. Believe it or not, they thought it was financially prudent to turn over their almost entire programming staff. Save money? You bet. Now that 70% of the staff there is a group of imported contractors, my last contact there (who ends his tenure their this month) said it best:
Got Documentation?

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.