The numbers I am quoting are running with Type 2 JDBC drivers under WebSphere 5.1. Running on the same LPAR as the COBOL code. They are even worse running on a server doing remote access.
Now this particular J2EE application was written by a 3rd party vendor so I can't for certain determine the actual bottle neck, but DB/2 access seems to be the culprit based on the traces we have done. It is a very large application with a 22mb EAR file that we deploy and I don't think it is written for speed. Even the small SERVLET's I have written suck sand when it comes to database speed. The actual query speeds are similar but setup and processing the data takes longer. Maybe it is JAVA itself, I don't know, but I can only respond with what I have observed.
The reason Mainframes still rule the world is because of the IO speed. I do JAVA and COBOL development and the reason JAVA will NEVER win is because of the slow ass TCP/IP database access. My COBOL programs run 13.88x times faster because they use Assembler calls to DB/2 routines where as JAVA uses JDBC. JAVA loads at 3.6 recs/sec where as COBOL loads at 50 recs/sec. It doesn't matter how fast your CPU is when you are waiting on the network.
I think what people overlook is why they ever start believing in particular God(s). It is clearly a regional trend since you are told to believe a certain way. The assult begins even before you have the capacity to understand what they are telling you. Trust us. This is true. You must conform. Most finally succumb because of the peer pressure and fear of what they say will happen if you don't.
Would you have come up with the Christian faith if left to your own imagination? There are many examples of isolated races that didn't. How can it be truth then? It always takes men to spread the "word" for any religion. Clearly if God is there then he/she/it isn't talking.
Mainframes aren't going away because they are actually cheaper to run. And regardless of what some posters have said, don't have vacume tubes. What thay do have is dynamic CPUs, HUGE I/O buses, Optical data connections, massive storage, etc....
While some companies have poured cash down the drain in order to use the latest buzzword technology, smart companies use mainframes with COBOL/CICS/DB2. Train your people once and only once.
What do webservers provide over this combination aside from pretty graphics? Not much. HTML based apps are the rich mans CICS. Granted, it isn't a glamorous career, but it is a VERY effective technology that is rock solid. Programmers that do PC work can't imagine working on the Mainframe. But it is very efficient.
The tech world has come full circle. Client server was hot for awhile, but very hard to keep the clients up to date in a large organization and requires bandwidth of the GODS to transfer all the data around. Oh, lets go to web services. Okay. Now we are back to the mainframe model. The centralized server model is basically this (Webservers) = (Mainfraim/wo pretty graphics).
It sounds like you are describing CICS. But the time cost for loading programs is actually very low. CICS caches transactions. Programs that get used often remain loaded and are only unloaded when they are not used or the request queue rolls them off due to high varied transaction activity. It is really quite efficient.
I would agree that we need to cut pollution where ever possible. Fuel cells anyone. But to blame the current global changes on anything but solar cycles is just plain silly.
Nothing to see here. Move along....
Re:Sorry, you're wrong...
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
The Red sea bit is a translation error. It should read "the sea of Reeds". This area is shallow and can be crossed on foot at certain times of the year.
C/C++ is the worst application language I could imagine. If you want to write an OS great, but it is not designed for applications. Give Object Pascal a spin it is a GREAT language.
Amazing! From just one statement opposing your narrow view of the universe you have deduced my intellegence. Keep your eyes open. Theories are not true by default sir. Often they are proved wrong after much wasted effort.
Well lets see. We throw heavy nuclei together and for a brief moment in time they bond. Creating matter that we most probably can't find in nature. Sure sounds like we "created" something.
I dont place much faith in what comes out of accelerator collisions. When slamming 2 energy streams together at very close to C, guess what, we CREATE matter. It isnt matter that can occur naturally, and decays in nano-seconds, but who cares right. We got the big grant money to study it and produce reams of paper to prove we are doing something. Bah, I say. The information from this research hasnt provided the answers we seek about sub-atomic structure. It has IMO produced some wild theories with little merit and helps to obscure the true path that we seek.
Dont get me wrong. I too want to understand the structure of the universe. But we have been spinning our wheels with this research for some time now.
Flame away if you must, I have metaphasic shielding.
I haven't done this in a long time, but I used to record radio broadcast to cassettes all the time. I didn't own the record then either. How is this different to downloading an MP3 I don't own the CD for? Bottomline is it isn't ANY different. Either way I end up with content I want and didn't pay for. Sorry RIAA, you can't control everything, although you get a A+ for effort in this area.
Using hydrogen is the best option, although a lot of people will disagree with me and I admit there are problems with storage and capacity, but I don't believe they are so insurmountable that the benefits wouldn't outweigh the problems.
Coupled with solar conversion plants we would have an unlimited supply of power that would work with fuel cells or direct combustion engines.
It has been sometime back, but I saw that they could create mile long solor panels with fair ease. What is the current efficiency rating for solar panels now days? Last I heard it was less than 20% at best.
I understand that he was a criminal, but the government must have thought they held him long enough for his crime, because they released him. However, I DO NOT LIKE our government telling people what they can think or say. He STILL has 1st amendment rights protect and is entitled to make a living. He does not hurt anyone by giving lectures and it may keep him out of trouble. Besides, we could all stand to learn from him how to prevent the sort of activity he served time for.
Like it or not in a free society, especially our media heavy society, interesting people get attention. So let him speak his mind and unless he breaks the law again. LEAVE HIM ALONE!
I find it amusing the fanaticism involved around programming languages. Usually I program in the "modular" form (non-OOP), but it seems the OOP crowd has somehow missed out. They seem to think you can't write efficient, easy to maintain systems without OOP to hold your hand through the process.
I write complex billing systems for large corporations using COBOL and don't believe OOP would improve the process. The complexity involved with the OOP model outweighs the benefits, especially in regards to maintainability. Aren't subroutines that can be called from ANY module, essentially inheritance through modularity? In addition, this method doesn't have the code bloat associated with OOP. Why declare variables of type object (X), which could have 50 properties (subroutines), when all I need to reference are 10 of them? Simply call the 10 subroutines directly, from anywhere. The way I see it, OOP came about to try to force weak programmers to follow a structured approach. Which admittedly, the modular method is weak at enforcing. However, you can write some real crap using either.
I work with a Visual Basic group that interfaces with our system to work service orders from the service technician's trucks. They use "modern" tools and we use "dinosaur" mainframe tools. However, we still manage to finish before them most of the time, with fewer errors. Curious.
People give COBOL a bad rap, but for what it is used for, it would be hard to replace. I pity the company that embraced C/C++ as their batch processing language. COBOL is better suited for those tasks. It is also easier to maintain and more self-documenting than any other language.
My personal favorite language is Pascal or Object Pascal under Delphi. I would use it for any task. If you haven't already tried it, give it a look. It smokes C/C++ for readability and runs just as fast. Delphi also has all those nice OOP characteristics people like these days.
I have often considered writing a book with my subject line title. I have seen shops with no standards to shops with "standards" so ridged you can't get a report change done in 3 months. The only approach that I have seen work is hiring competent people that can work directly with the clients. This allows management to stay out of the way and let the coders do their job unhindered. All the other schemes I have seen simply slowed the process down without providing the promised benefits.
When you place tight controls on your technical staff. What I have observed is, they still make the mistakes, but it takes a really long time to move them into production. This translates into no quality increases and performance decreases. Doh! I bet if you checked an IT shops performance statistics before and after these controls are put in place. They would prove this point.
Bottom line is, let the programmers do what you pay them for and don't design methodologies for the lowest common denominator.
I work in the mainframe world and although we run MVS, I have seen references to IBM running Unix on their S/390 line (maybe others). So, it shouldn't be too hard for them to get Linux to run too. Someone posted something about TCP/IP and seemed suprised it might be on a MF. Well even on our MVS box we use TCP/IP for everything. We even have SMTP and FTP servers running on it and it works great. I think it would be wonderful to have Linux as the base OS.
Do you actually understand anything more about dark matter than "it's got mass and we can't see it"? Your dark matter hypothesis (where the dark matter effect permeates space) would be essentially the same as conventional Hot Dark Matter theories, an example of which would be massive (but still very light!) neutrinos. Unfortunately HDM theories alone can explain observations no better than Cold Dark Matter theories on their own. It's a lot more complicated than just "we can't see all the mass that's out there".
First off, cut back on the coffee. And no, I don't have clear understanding of dark matter. What I have read or heard about it varies greatly by who is presenting it. If it is simply accounting for massive black holes (at the center of galaxies..etc.) then I would agree it probably has some merit. But, I have not heard of the Hot/Cold DM theories you mention.
Er. Calculus is not 100% correct or we would be able to symbolically integrate sinc(x). (cough)bullshit(/cough). You can't necessarily solve any given equation. Of course, I'm not saying relativity is necessarily right, just that your logic is flawed.
My logic is fine. You are simply reading more into my statement than I intended. I am not saying that Calculus is perfect or that you can solve every equation. Since Einstein was not perfect and math is not perfect, it is doubtful that his conclusions about the universe are perfect. I have never fully believed that lightspeed is a limiting factor. It may be limited as defined by space itself. However, are there not theories of particles that have FTL characteristics? We do not have full understanding of the forces we are trying describe.
Oh, I suppose we should just listen to the stars instead? Yes, it would be nice to be able to sense gravitational fields directly in the brain or the like. But we can't and never will be able to. It's not an important consideration since we can't change it. What is far more limiting is that we are also economically driven in our research, so the important things often don't get funded because they are not of short-term commercial importance.
Again, you missed my point. I believe, some of the Quantum theories I have read about are still not widely accepted. They may even be shown to be totally false. But, what they predict may never be observable and some people have a hard time accepting what they can not see. That is all I was trying to say.
PS. Sorry if this comes across as flamage, but it irritates me a little when people try to convince others of their ideas when those ideas are half-formed, have no supporting evidence or theory and don't even fit with existing data, let alone predict anything. It's nothing more than cargo cult science and achieves only the spread of people with little clue about real science.
Flamage is as flamage does and I find your response both rude and insulting. My Calculus skill my be dusty, but I haven't used it in 15 years. I do try to keep current with science though. I have never been efficient at expressing myself in writing, but I didn't intend to come across as clueless. Please keep in mind that Slashdot is about discussion.
I don't believe the 'ether' concept is totally false. I do agree that 'dark matter' is probably not real at all though. Quantum theory has come across the ZPE (Zero point energy) concept. If you carry the concept out a little more, then wouldn't SPACE HAVE MASS. Which loosely ties into the 'ether' concept. Relativity is not 100% correct or the unified field theory would have been solved by now. So perhaps light's constant nature is only contant while moving though space and time. Meaning, if light can propogate through a void, it could be interacting with space itself which gives it the speed properties of 'C'.
We are visually driven in our research and I believe that limits us somewhat.
Slashdot Mirror
The numbers I am quoting are running with Type 2 JDBC drivers under WebSphere 5.1. Running on the same LPAR as the COBOL code. They are even worse running on a server doing remote access.
Now this particular J2EE application was written by a 3rd party vendor so I can't for certain determine the actual bottle neck, but DB/2 access seems to be the culprit based on the traces we have done. It is a very large application with a 22mb EAR file that we deploy and I don't think it is written for speed. Even the small SERVLET's I have written suck sand when it comes to database speed. The actual query speeds are similar but setup and processing the data takes longer. Maybe it is JAVA itself, I don't know, but I can only respond with what I have observed.
The reason Mainframes still rule the world is because of the IO speed. I do JAVA and COBOL development and the reason JAVA will NEVER win is because of the slow ass TCP/IP database access. My COBOL programs run 13.88x times faster because they use Assembler calls to DB/2 routines where as JAVA uses JDBC. JAVA loads at 3.6 recs/sec where as COBOL loads at 50 recs/sec. It doesn't matter how fast your CPU is when you are waiting on the network.
--Scott
If Quantum ZPE exists, then space must have mass.
I think what people overlook is why they ever start believing in particular God(s). It is clearly a regional trend since you are told to believe a certain way. The assult begins even before you have the capacity to understand what they are telling you. Trust us. This is true. You must conform. Most finally succumb because of the peer pressure and fear of what they say will happen if you don't.
Would you have come up with the Christian faith if left to your own imagination? There are many examples of isolated races that didn't. How can it be truth then? It always takes men to spread the "word" for any religion. Clearly if God is there then he/she/it isn't talking.
Naw, just close the circle to form the Deathstar image.
Yeah, I didn't get onto the fact that you can replace and entire server farm with one mainframe.
Mainframes aren't going away because they are actually cheaper to run. And regardless of what some posters have said, don't have vacume tubes. What thay do have is dynamic CPUs, HUGE I/O buses, Optical data connections, massive storage, etc....
/wo pretty graphics).
While some companies have poured cash down the drain in order to use the latest buzzword technology, smart companies use mainframes with COBOL/CICS/DB2. Train your people once and only once.
What do webservers provide over this combination aside from pretty graphics? Not much. HTML based apps are the rich mans CICS. Granted, it isn't a glamorous career, but it is a VERY effective technology that is rock solid. Programmers that do PC work can't imagine working on the Mainframe. But it is very efficient.
The tech world has come full circle. Client server was hot for awhile, but very hard to keep the clients up to date in a large organization and requires bandwidth of the GODS to transfer all the data around. Oh, lets go to web services. Okay. Now we are back to the mainframe model. The centralized server model is basically this (Webservers) = (Mainfraim
It sounds like you are describing CICS. But the time cost for loading programs is actually very low. CICS caches transactions. Programs that get used often remain loaded and are only unloaded when they are not used or the request queue rolls them off due to high varied transaction activity. It is really quite efficient.
Indeed, my SUV is powerful.
I would agree that we need to cut pollution where ever possible. Fuel cells anyone. But to blame the current global changes on anything but solar cycles is just plain silly.
Nothing to see here. Move along....
The Red sea bit is a translation error. It should read "the sea of Reeds". This area is shallow and can be crossed on foot at certain times of the year.
C/C++ is the worst application language I could imagine. If you want to write an OS great, but it is not designed for applications. Give Object Pascal a spin it is a GREAT language.
Amazing! From just one statement opposing your narrow view of the universe you have deduced my intellegence. Keep your eyes open. Theories are not true by default sir. Often they are proved wrong after much wasted effort.
Well lets see. We throw heavy nuclei together and for a brief moment in time they bond. Creating matter that we most probably can't find in nature. Sure sounds like we "created" something.
I dont place much faith in what comes out of accelerator collisions. When slamming 2 energy streams together at very close to C, guess what, we CREATE matter. It isnt matter that can occur naturally, and decays in nano-seconds, but who cares right. We got the big grant money to study it and produce reams of paper to prove we are doing something. Bah, I say. The information from this research hasnt provided the answers we seek about sub-atomic structure. It has IMO produced some wild theories with little merit and helps to obscure the true path that we seek.
Dont get me wrong. I too want to understand the structure of the universe. But we have been spinning our wheels with this research for some time now.
Flame away if you must, I have metaphasic shielding.
It isn't illegal. Just like recording a show with a VCR isn't illegal as long as you don't sell it or profit from it. It used to be called fair use.
I haven't done this in a long time, but I used to record radio broadcast to cassettes all the time. I didn't own the record then either. How is this different to downloading an MP3 I don't own the CD for? Bottomline is it isn't ANY different. Either way I end up with content I want and didn't pay for. Sorry RIAA, you can't control everything, although you get a A+ for effort in this area.
Does DMCA supersede all previous "fair use" laws?
Using hydrogen is the best option, although a lot of people will disagree with me and I admit there are problems with storage and capacity, but I don't believe they are so insurmountable that the benefits wouldn't outweigh the problems.
Coupled with solar conversion plants we would have an unlimited supply of power that would work with fuel cells or direct combustion engines.
It has been sometime back, but I saw that they could create mile long solor panels with fair ease. What is the current efficiency rating for solar panels now days? Last I heard it was less than 20% at best.
I understand that he was a criminal, but the government must have thought they held him long enough for his crime, because they released him. However, I DO NOT LIKE our government telling people what they can think or say. He STILL has 1st amendment rights protect and is entitled to make a living. He does not hurt anyone by giving lectures and it may keep him out of trouble. Besides, we could all stand to learn from him how to prevent the sort of activity he served time for.
Like it or not in a free society, especially our media heavy society, interesting people get attention. So let him speak his mind and unless he breaks the law again. LEAVE HIM ALONE!
I hereby define "virii" as the plural form of "virus" for the latin language. There, feel free to use it now that it is official.
Inventing words is easy. Please refer to history for many examples.
--Scott 8-}
I find it amusing the fanaticism involved around programming languages. Usually I program in the "modular" form (non-OOP), but it seems the OOP crowd has somehow missed out. They seem to think you can't write efficient, easy to maintain systems without OOP to hold your hand through the process.
I write complex billing systems for large corporations using COBOL and don't believe OOP would improve the process. The complexity involved with the OOP model outweighs the benefits, especially in regards to maintainability. Aren't subroutines that can be called from ANY module, essentially inheritance through modularity? In addition, this method doesn't have the code bloat associated with OOP. Why declare variables of type object (X), which could have 50 properties (subroutines), when all I need to reference are 10 of them? Simply call the 10 subroutines directly, from anywhere. The way I see it, OOP came about to try to force weak programmers to follow a structured approach. Which admittedly, the modular method is weak at enforcing. However, you can write some real crap using either.
I work with a Visual Basic group that interfaces with our system to work service orders from the service technician's trucks. They use "modern" tools and we use "dinosaur" mainframe tools. However, we still manage to finish before them most of the time, with fewer errors. Curious.
People give COBOL a bad rap, but for what it is used for, it would be hard to replace. I pity the company that embraced C/C++ as their batch processing language. COBOL is better suited for those tasks. It is also easier to maintain and more self-documenting than any other language.
My personal favorite language is Pascal or Object Pascal under Delphi. I would use it for any task. If you haven't already tried it, give it a look. It smokes C/C++ for readability and runs just as fast. Delphi also has all those nice OOP characteristics people like these days.
--Scott
This is why I haven't.
I have often considered writing a book with my subject line title. I have seen shops with no standards to shops with "standards" so ridged you can't get a report change done in 3 months. The only approach that I have seen work is hiring competent people that can work directly with the clients. This allows management to stay out of the way and let the coders do their job unhindered. All the other schemes I have seen simply slowed the process down without providing the promised benefits.
When you place tight controls on your technical staff. What I have observed is, they still make the mistakes, but it takes a really long time to move them into production. This translates into no quality increases and performance decreases. Doh! I bet if you checked an IT shops performance statistics before and after these controls are put in place. They would prove this point.
Bottom line is, let the programmers do what you pay them for and don't design methodologies for the lowest common denominator.
--Scott
I work in the mainframe world and although we run MVS, I have seen references to IBM running Unix on their S/390 line (maybe others). So, it shouldn't be too hard for them to get Linux to run too. Someone posted something about TCP/IP and seemed suprised it might be on a MF. Well even on our MVS box we use TCP/IP for everything. We even have SMTP and FTP servers running on it and it works great. I think it would be wonderful to have Linux as the base OS.
Do you actually understand anything more about dark matter than "it's got mass and we can't see it"? Your dark matter hypothesis (where the dark matter effect permeates space) would be essentially the same as conventional Hot Dark Matter theories, an example of which would be massive (but still very light!) neutrinos. Unfortunately HDM theories alone can explain observations no better than Cold Dark Matter theories on their own. It's a lot more complicated than just "we can't see all the mass that's out there".
First off, cut back on the coffee. And no, I don't have clear understanding of dark matter. What I have read or heard about it varies greatly by who is presenting it. If it is simply accounting for massive black holes (at the center of galaxies..etc.) then I would agree it probably has some merit. But, I have not heard of the Hot/Cold DM theories you mention.
Er. Calculus is not 100% correct or we would be able to symbolically integrate sinc(x). (cough)bullshit(/cough).
You can't necessarily solve any given equation. Of course, I'm not saying relativity is necessarily right, just that your logic is flawed.
My logic is fine. You are simply reading more into my statement than I intended. I am not saying that Calculus is perfect or that you can solve every equation. Since Einstein was not perfect and math is not perfect, it is doubtful that his conclusions about the universe are perfect. I have never fully believed that lightspeed is a limiting factor. It may be limited as defined by space itself. However, are there not theories of particles that have FTL characteristics? We do not have full understanding of the forces we are trying describe.
Oh, I suppose we should just listen to the stars instead?
Yes, it would be nice to be able to sense gravitational fields directly in the brain or the like. But we can't and never will be able to. It's not an important consideration since we can't change it. What is far more limiting is that we are also economically driven in our research, so the important things often don't get funded because they are not of short-term commercial importance.
Again, you missed my point. I believe, some of the Quantum theories I have read about are still not widely accepted. They may even be shown to be totally false. But, what they predict may never be observable and some people have a hard time accepting what they can not see. That is all I was trying to say.
PS. Sorry if this comes across as flamage, but it irritates me a little when people try to convince others of their ideas when those ideas are half-formed, have no supporting evidence or theory and don't even fit with existing data, let alone predict anything. It's nothing more than cargo cult science and achieves only the spread of people with little clue about real science.
Flamage is as flamage does and I find your response both rude and insulting. My Calculus skill my be dusty, but I haven't used it in 15 years. I do try to keep current with science though. I have never been efficient at expressing myself in writing, but I didn't intend to come across as clueless. Please keep in mind that Slashdot is about discussion.
>>Like 'ether', dark matter is not real at all.
I don't believe the 'ether' concept is totally false. I do agree that 'dark matter' is probably not real at all though. Quantum theory has come across the ZPE (Zero point energy) concept. If you carry the concept out a little more, then wouldn't SPACE HAVE MASS. Which loosely ties into the 'ether' concept. Relativity is not 100% correct or the unified field theory would have been solved by now. So perhaps light's constant nature is only contant while moving though space and time. Meaning, if light can propogate through a void, it could be interacting with space itself which gives it the speed properties of 'C'.
We are visually driven in our research and I believe that limits us somewhat.