RE: RE: Some fodder for marketing, perhaps

[qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   4. RE: RE: Some fodder for marketing, perhaps (Chuck Lewis)
>
>I seem to remember creating a QUPSMSGQ or something like that at my previous
>job to trap UPS messages and act on them (?).

Chuck:

Yeah, but since I haven't bought a UPS yet, I didn't do anything with that. I'd 
just like to know if there was a 'disruption' but ~no~ message was sent 
~anywhere~ or there somehow was no power problem in that part of the house. 
Either way I look at it, it isn't comfortable.

Unless... it's just one more thing to add to the list about why an AS/400 is 
more reliable. Maybe the message ~would~ be sent if a few more cycles were 
dropped.

Tom Liotta

>-----Original Message-----
>
>midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>   6. RE: RE: Some fodder for marketing, perhaps (Doug Hart)
>>
>>date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:21:44 -0500
>>
>> I can't remember the model 170 but my home 50S still has internal
>>batteries.  It stays up through short power outages fine.  I only have to
>>reset the TCP networking because my router and switch go down.
>
>Doug:
>
>Internal batteries/UPS was my obvious first thought, but I haven't seen any
>indication before and we have a power drop every other month or so during
>fall/winter -- the system's een here three years. It's a little irritating
>that there wasn't a "Utility power lost/Utility power restored" set of
>messages for example. Hmmm... come to think of it, I don't recall if I
>created QSYSMSG... maybe I didn't look far enough. Since it didn't power
>off/on, I didn't worry enough to look deeper.
>
>Guess I'll have to do some serious looking. Thanks for making me think.