RE: why cum ptf apply faster than predicted?

[Dwayne Lindner <Dwayne.Lindner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess only IBM can really answer those questions - LPP's installed will
play a BIG factor as well, and they are something I didn't even think of in
my last post.


Dwayne Lindner
Senior Network Analyst
Wesfarmers Rural Information Technology
184 Railway Parade, Bassendean WA 6054
Ph: (08) 9273 5365    Mob: 0407 386 693
Email: dwayne.lindner@writ.wesfarmers.com.au


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Richter [mailto:srichter@AutoCoder.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2001 10:59
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: why cum ptf apply faster than predicted?
> 
> 
> good explanation of the reason for the high side estimate.
> 
> But the low side estimate still remains questionable. The 
> cover letter said
> 4 to 8 hours.
> 
> Is the 4 and 8 hour figure the value for the best and worse 
> case scenario on
> a baseline system?
> 
> ex: 4 hrs if loading cume on top of a new release on a 520, 8 
> hrs if loading
> on top of a prev cume on the same 520?
> 
>
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---