info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
One Less Mainframe Shop
33 views
Skip to first unread message
DKM
Dec 16, 2011, 5:16:39 PM12/16/11
to
Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at
my place of emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were
getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe. After I
was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be
shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going
to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six
months. The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we
went live on the new software and platform. Well we did go live on the new ERP
within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the
company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it,
there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running
on it.
Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to
the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after
the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final
switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to get
us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and
virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors,
all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I can’t
help but wonder if we are really better off.
DKM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
my place of emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were
getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe. After I
was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be
shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going
to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six
months. The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we
went live on the new software and platform. Well we did go live on the new ERP
within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the
company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it,
there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running
on it.
Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to
the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after
the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final
switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to get
us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and
virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors,
all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I can’t
help but wonder if we are really better off.
DKM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Joel C. Ewing
Dec 17, 2011, 8:53:12 AM12/17/11
to
On 12/16/2011 04:06 PM, DKM wrote:
> Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at
> my place of emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were
> getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe. After I
> was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be
> shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going
> to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
>
> It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six
> months. The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we
> went live on the new software and platform. Well we did go live on the new ERP
> within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the
> company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it,
> there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running
> on it.
>
> Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to
> the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after
> the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final
> switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to get
> us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
> how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and
> virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors,
> all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I can’t
> help but wonder if we are really better off.
>
> DKM
>
Since this sounds like management by ideology and 1990's airplane mags,
> Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at
> my place of emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were
> getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe. After I
> was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be
> shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going
> to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
>
> It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six
> months. The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we
> went live on the new software and platform. Well we did go live on the new ERP
> within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the
> company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it,
> there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running
> on it.
>
> Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to
> the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after
> the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final
> switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to get
> us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
> how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and
> virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors,
> all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I can’t
> help but wonder if we are really better off.
>
> DKM
>
I don't suppose they were honest enough to compare their current total
IT costs now with their prior mainframe IT costs, which could likely
have been reduced by simply upgrading to modern z boxes and DASD and a
more modest migration strategy.
--
Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR jce...@acm.org
Mike Schwab
Dec 17, 2011, 10:39:34 AM12/17/11
to
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:06 PM, DKM <dkm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at
> my place of emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were
> getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe. After I
> was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be
> shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going
> to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
>
> It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six
> months. The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we
> went live on the new software and platform. Well we did go live on the new ERP
> within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the
> company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it,
> there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running
> on it.
>
> Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to
> the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after
> the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final
> switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to get
> us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
> how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and
> virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors,
> all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I can’t
> help but wonder if we are really better off.
>
> DKM
That sounds like enough hosts that they should be able to save a lot
> Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at
> my place of emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were
> getting ready to pick a new ERP and get off their “archaic” mainframe. After I
> was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how they would be
> shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going
> to take at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
>
> It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six
> months. The mainframe was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we
> went live on the new software and platform. Well we did go live on the new ERP
> within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire business of the
> company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it,
> there were still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running
> on it.
>
> Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to
> the now 11-year-old System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after
> the New Year, a ceremony is being planned to let the Chairman flip the final
> switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of Modernization” to get
> us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
> how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and
> virtual, and think about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors,
> all to replace the one S/390 that was divided in to four virtual systems I can’t
> help but wonder if we are really better off.
>
> DKM
of power by rehosting on z/VM z/Linux.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xL8s8WZUxo
--
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
Eric Bielefeld
Dec 17, 2011, 1:03:30 PM12/17/11
to
I can't help but think about my long time job at P&H Mining when reading of
companies taking 10 years to get off the mainframe. I was hired in 1985 to
install MVS on a 3081 running 5 DOS guests and 2 VS1 guests under VM. I was
a little concerned when I would go to a meeting with my boss shortly after I
was hired and he was trying to convince a higher level of management that we
need to convert to MVS.
I installed MVS/SP 1.3.5 in Aug. 1985. The 2 VS1 guests were easy to
convert. One ran 20 Cadam scopes, and the other ran Nastran jobs, an
engineering language P&H used for finite element analysis, whatever that is.
I think it took about 2 years after that to convert all of the DOS guests to
MVS which ran the business part of the datacenter.
In 2004, they made the decision to get off of the mainframe. We had bought
Joy Mining in Pennsylvania in the early 90's, a maker of underground mining
equipment. P&H made above ground mining shovels, so that was a good fit
business wise. Joy decided to get off the mainframe rather than convert all
of their really old home grown software for the Y2K conversion. By early
1999, Joy finished their conversion, and ran everything on their own machine
in PA again on an Aix platform. Meanwhile, P&H converted all of their
software with their own staff and lots of consultants.
A big part of the conversion was that we were running SAP software. Joy
converted everything they ran to different SAP software modules. A few
years after the conversion, P&H decided to get off of their MVS mainframe
and run on Joy's system in PA. They planned on an 18 month conversion
effort. That actually got extended by 3 months, so the whole conversion
effort took 21 months. I believe the whole conversion to AIX was made
possible when SAP decided to allow P&H to run on Joy's computer system
without buying another SAP license. Originally, SAP was going to make P&H
buy a new license for their software. Then, they decided that if Joy & P&H
ran on the same computer system, they wouldn't have to buy a new license,
saving at least a million dollars or more.
My whole point in all this is that conversions to or from MVS don't have to
take 10 years. It often does, but it doesn't have to. I think at P&H we
had several advantages. We had MVS installed for only 21 years at the time
we got off of it, not 40 like a lot of shops. Also, much of the software we
had was packages. We also had a smaller 115 MIP machine - an MP3000.
I have to say, I wish P&H hadn't converted off of MVS, but it probably was
the right thing for them to do givin all of the circumstances. It would be
a lot nicer driving 5 miles to work every day from my home in the Milwaukee
area than driving 170 miles to Dubuque every Sunday and back again on Friday
after work. Oh well!
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
IBM Global Services Division
Dubuque, Iowa
companies taking 10 years to get off the mainframe. I was hired in 1985 to
install MVS on a 3081 running 5 DOS guests and 2 VS1 guests under VM. I was
a little concerned when I would go to a meeting with my boss shortly after I
was hired and he was trying to convince a higher level of management that we
need to convert to MVS.
I installed MVS/SP 1.3.5 in Aug. 1985. The 2 VS1 guests were easy to
convert. One ran 20 Cadam scopes, and the other ran Nastran jobs, an
engineering language P&H used for finite element analysis, whatever that is.
I think it took about 2 years after that to convert all of the DOS guests to
MVS which ran the business part of the datacenter.
In 2004, they made the decision to get off of the mainframe. We had bought
Joy Mining in Pennsylvania in the early 90's, a maker of underground mining
equipment. P&H made above ground mining shovels, so that was a good fit
business wise. Joy decided to get off the mainframe rather than convert all
of their really old home grown software for the Y2K conversion. By early
1999, Joy finished their conversion, and ran everything on their own machine
in PA again on an Aix platform. Meanwhile, P&H converted all of their
software with their own staff and lots of consultants.
A big part of the conversion was that we were running SAP software. Joy
converted everything they ran to different SAP software modules. A few
years after the conversion, P&H decided to get off of their MVS mainframe
and run on Joy's system in PA. They planned on an 18 month conversion
effort. That actually got extended by 3 months, so the whole conversion
effort took 21 months. I believe the whole conversion to AIX was made
possible when SAP decided to allow P&H to run on Joy's computer system
without buying another SAP license. Originally, SAP was going to make P&H
buy a new license for their software. Then, they decided that if Joy & P&H
ran on the same computer system, they wouldn't have to buy a new license,
saving at least a million dollars or more.
My whole point in all this is that conversions to or from MVS don't have to
take 10 years. It often does, but it doesn't have to. I think at P&H we
had several advantages. We had MVS installed for only 21 years at the time
we got off of it, not 40 like a lot of shops. Also, much of the software we
had was packages. We also had a smaller 115 MIP machine - an MP3000.
I have to say, I wish P&H hadn't converted off of MVS, but it probably was
the right thing for them to do givin all of the circumstances. It would be
a lot nicer driving 5 miles to work every day from my home in the Milwaukee
area than driving 170 miles to Dubuque every Sunday and back again on Friday
after work. Oh well!
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
IBM Global Services Division
Dubuque, Iowa
DKM
Dec 18, 2011, 6:22:43 PM12/18/11
to
The actual start of the migration off the mainframe started shortly after the
current one was purchased. It replaced two older systems was meant to be the
last one.
Still this was more than just a get off the mainframe push, this was a complete
change in culture and philosophy. Up until 1999 almost all software was
homegrown and maintained. Only the financial system was from an outside vendor
and the reports from it were heavily customized. The company wanted to shift
from homegrown to vendor provided and in some cases even vendor hosted
solutions. There was no way this was going to be done quickly due to cost
alone, but the 5 year plan took twice as long because not everything was looked.
Still, top management placed a guy with an accounting background over IT. In
his view, shared by top management, the mainframe and its green screen was old
out of date technology and the world was moving to Microsoft Windows. They
really did not want to hear or understand anything else.
current one was purchased. It replaced two older systems was meant to be the
last one.
Still this was more than just a get off the mainframe push, this was a complete
change in culture and philosophy. Up until 1999 almost all software was
homegrown and maintained. Only the financial system was from an outside vendor
and the reports from it were heavily customized. The company wanted to shift
from homegrown to vendor provided and in some cases even vendor hosted
solutions. There was no way this was going to be done quickly due to cost
alone, but the 5 year plan took twice as long because not everything was looked.
Still, top management placed a guy with an accounting background over IT. In
his view, shared by top management, the mainframe and its green screen was old
out of date technology and the world was moving to Microsoft Windows. They
really did not want to hear or understand anything else.
Rick Fochtman
Dec 18, 2011, 6:31:26 PM12/18/11
to
"airline magazines".
"Those young folks THINK us old fogies are fools; us old fogies KNOW the
young folks are fools."
Rick
Chase, John
Dec 19, 2011, 9:25:16 AM12/19/11
to
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of DKM
>
> Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at my place of
> emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were getting ready to pick a new ERP and get
> off their “archaic” mainframe. After I was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how
> they would be shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going to take
> at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
>
> It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six months. The mainframe
> was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we went live on the new software and platform.
> Well we did go live on the new ERP within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire
> business of the company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it, there were
> still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running on it.
>
> Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to the now 11-year-old
> System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after the New Year, a ceremony is being planned
> to let the Chairman flip the final switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of
> Modernization” to get us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
> how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and virtual, and think
> about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors, all to replace the one S/390 that was
> divided in to four virtual systems I can’t help but wonder if we are really better off.
Certainly, FSVO "better off".
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of DKM
>
> Just over seven years ago, I was hired as the Financial System Administrator at my place of
> emplacement. In my first interview, I was told how they were getting ready to pick a new ERP and get
> off their “archaic” mainframe. After I was hired, the IT director at the time told me with glee how
> they would be shutting down the mainframe in six months. This shocked me a bit it was going to take
> at least a year to go live with the new ERP solution.
>
> It turned out maintenance on the 20-year-old software was going to end in six months. The mainframe
> was actually scheduled for shutdown six months after we went live on the new software and platform.
> Well we did go live on the new ERP within a year, but the mainframe at one time had run the entire
> business of the company and while the financial suite was the last large part to go off it, there were
> still several “smaller” but just as important systems still running on it.
>
> Consequently, it took seven years, and two other IT directors, before access to the now 11-year-old
> System/390 was finally cut this week. At some point after the New Year, a ceremony is being planned
> to let the Chairman flip the final switch to turn off the system. He has been a “Champion of
> Modernization” to get us off the mainframe for almost 10 years. I’m sure speeches will be made about
> how far we have come. Yet, as I look around at the countless servers, real and virtual, and think
> about the major software platforms hosted by outside vendors, all to replace the one S/390 that was
> divided in to four virtual systems I can’t help but wonder if we are really better off.
-jc-
0 new messages