RE: Archives (was: RPG Free question)

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces+jt=ee.net@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David
| Gibbs
| Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:23 AM

| jt wrote:
| > | Google does have a good search engine.  If I could afford their search
| > | appliance, I'd grab it in a second.
| > I've heard-a this, but don't know any details...  What does it do (allow
| > same Google capabilities focused on one's site?) and how much?

Oooops.

| Dunno, but it's delivered as a 1U rack component.  It's turnkey, so you
| just plug it in, tell it what you want to index, and let it rip.
|
| It's so outside the realm of possibility for me, I haven't even
| investigated it.

Uhh..  Forgot it was hardware based.  Seen various figures around 20K+ to
start.  (See oooops, above...;-)  Price will probably come down.  Dunno if
they have any competition in this area.

Interesting concept though:  (from http://www.google.com/appliance/faq.html)

"Because it's a completely self-contained appliance, no expensive and
time-consuming professional services are required to keep your search
running at peak efficiency."

"5. Why offer an appliance instead of shipping traditional enterprise
software?

The Google Search Appliance delivers a simpler, more reliable solution with
a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than traditional enterprise software
can offer. Because all customers run the same hardware configuration,
Google's software is more thoroughly tested. Because there's no need to run
Google software on multiple operating systems, we're able to develop new
features more quickly. And you get a lower TCO because there's no need to
manage the complexities of the underlying operating system yourself."

Sounds like a familiar concept, to me anyway, but that thar TCO is
'pparently sumpin new and hard-ta understand to a lotta folks in IT outside
the 400 arena...;-D

<slightly OT, from a while back>

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
| Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:07 PM
| To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
| Subject: Re: Simon Coulter's post, and %EOF


| Sometimes it makes you wish that they
| came out with Primary files in a later release.  This way all the people
| would think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Yep.

| I kind of liked (was it RNF7086 or RNS7086) at the bottom of my compile
| listing.  "RPG handles blocking for the file."  Rather nice to have all
| this done automatically, isn't it?

Yep again.  (Hadta try one to refresh my memory, it's RNF7086.)  Heard-a,
but never played with, BLOCK(*YES).  It doesn't have any similar message for
some reason.  Perhaps the InfDs IS updated for each record rather than the
block?