Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- From: "P. Raulerson" <paul.rl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:58:03 -0600
Yow- tough situation.
Forgetting all the good reasons to move to something new, you don't have a
lot of options. I suppose they have reasons not to move the platform right
away.
The best answer to this situation is simple - do not move it. Just 'rehost'
it on VM. You can put it on a very fast high quality machine, use the same
OS that is working now, but have the ability to quickly move it to another
physical machine or VM. By quickly, we are talking about within five to ten
minutes.
The benefits? 10 to 20 times the processing power, insulation from hardware
issues, absolute compatibility with the existing system, safe secure
backups, rapid deployment for disaster recovery, and on top of that, you can
(disregarding license issues) easily have a test/development system and a
production system. The disadvantages - still dependent upon outdated
unsupported software and non-supported OS. But this is not a problem because
they are going to replace that software with some new whizbang stuff, right?
This is something you can implement in about a day. Do it, do the changes
and testing, impress you client, and then engage them for immediate
follow-on work.
Roughly the cost you are looking at to this:
New PC Hardware: $4K - $11K. Depending upon the needs. $11K = new dual-core
dual processor IBM LS20 blade with dual fibre connections & eight gigs of
RAM on board.
VM software (Free to about $4K).
NT Software, Compiler, etc. Already in place.
So cost (in the U.S. you are on your own in the U.K.) is anywhere from $4K
to $15K, a very reasonable cost to extend the life of a critical system. And
yes, you could host it on a Windows Server or Windows Vista machine without
any trouble.
Time to implement: Time for you to make the changes and test them plus one
to two days.
-Paul
"UK-Contractor42" <lawrence.foster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166615483.662939.45100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One of my current contract tasks is to put a old, vulnerable
application based on 16bit code on a firmer footing by researching,
documenting and testing changes to it.
Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43, Gupta
SQL Pre-Compiler 2.5.2, SLQ*Base9.
Prod. platform is NT4 SP6, XP SP1. Will be XP SP2 in 2007, and likely
to be Vista before the system is decommissioned.
Yes I realise this is stone age stuff but there is no budget to
re-compile as 32bit COBOL or rewrite using Visual Studio.
Have had some success understanding the components that need to be in
place to amend, pro-compile, compile and link and built a second
working build PC.
Will be trawling though the help files next (there are no manuals).
It would be great to get in touch with anyone who is using a 16bit
version of Microfocus COBOL, or who has used it relatively recently.
The Client, an Global Insurer, appreciate the situation is risky -
that's why I'm onsite! If anyone knows of any imminent dangers
presented by staying with 3.2.43 I would especially like to hear from
them.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- From: gary drummond
- Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- From: Richard
- Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- From: Donald Tees
- Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- References:
- Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- From: UK-Contractor42
- Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- Prev by Date: Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- Next by Date: Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- Previous by thread: Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- Next by thread: Re: Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
