From: arne@vajhoej.dk   
      
   On 7/12/2025 11:02 AM, bill wrote:   
   > On 7/12/2025 10:41 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:   
   >> On 7/12/2025 9:35 AM, bill wrote:   
   >>> On 7/11/2025 8:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:   
   >>                                  
   Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  If   
   >> you have a Cobol system using ISAM files, then do not want to convert   
   >> it to a Java/C++/Go/C# system using ISAM files.   
   >   
   > If you have a COBOL program using ISAM today it should have been   
   > converted to DBMS years ago.  That does not imply that it should be   
   > converted to JAVA/C++/Go/C#.   
      
   No.   
      
   But it implies that *if* you are rewriting it then it should also   
   be converted from ISAM to RDBMS.   
      
   Not 1:1 conversion.   
      
   >>>> from vertical app scaling to horizontal app scaling,   
   >>>   
   >>> Not really sure what this means.  :-)   
   >>   
   >> You can call it cluster support.   
   >>   
   >> If you run out of CPU power, then instead of upgrading from a   
   >> big expensive box to a very big very expensive box then you just   
   >> add a cluster node more.   
   >   
   > OK.  But I don't see what that has to do with it being written in COBOL.   
   > Or are you saying that IBM Systems don't scale?   
      
   Applications are not clusterable by magic - they need to be designed   
   for it.   
      
   So again if you are converting a non clusterable then it may be   
   a good opportunity to convert it to clusterable instead of 1:1   
   conversion.   
      
   It is possible to buy pretty powerful systems. But N small systems   
   with power 1 are cheaper than 1 huge system with power N. That was   
   the case 40 years ago for VAX. It is the case today.   
      
   >>>>                                 
   Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  from 5x16 to   
   >>>> 7x24 operations etc..   
   >>>   
   >>> Certainly don't get this.  Every place I ever saw COBOL was 24/7 and   
   >>> that is going back to at least 1972.   
   >>   
   >> I would be surprised if you have never experienced a financial   
   >> institution operating with a "transaction will be completed   
   >> next day" model.   
   >   
   > I get that now.  That has nothing to do with IT and everything to do   
   > with people and their being more "legacy" than the IS.  I am finally   
   > starting to see change. My last automatic payment from DFAS wasn't   
   > really due until a Monday, but the funds showed up on a Saturday.   
   > Even things that once ran only nightly as "batch" are now processed   
   > almost immediately.  But the people still only work 8 hours a day 5   
   > days a week and it is them that cause the apparent lag in most IT   
   > processing.  Used to be systems went offline for 6-8 hours for backups.   
   > Today if they go offline at all it is for seconds to minutes.  But, none   
   > of this was ever related to the language an IS was written in and   
   > rewriting it in JAVA/C++/Go/C# is not going to improve anything.   
      
   Again. It impacts the design. If the system is designed to only   
   do certain things at a certain time, then the logic in the system   
   must be re-designed to do everything as quickly as possible.   
      
   So again again if you rewrite an application, then you want   
   to change that logic instead of doing the 1:1 conversion.   
      
   Arne   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)