RE: What ids the performance comparison of FTP to other transfers?

["Pytel, Alexei" <pytela1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

These benchmark results have nothing to do with SNA vs TCP/IP.
It's just SNADS vs FTP. The difference being that SNA and TCP are
network protocols, while SNADS and FTP are applications.

With SNADS you have much more service - asynchronous transfer, send it
and forget it (system will take care), sending various objects types as
opposed to sending only files etc.
You have to pay for additional convenience. If you need just move the
file from one location to another via direct connection (as opposed to
several hops), don't mind looking at input inhibited indicator while
your gigabyte file is being transferred, don't mind to start all over
again (and do a cleanup manually) when your line goes down, etc - then
FTP is clearly a better choice.
Time is spent in SNADS for copying your file in an intermediate buffer,
from where it can be sent/resent without your intervention.

When comparing apples to apples - sending data between two peer programs
via APPC conversation or via TCP socket connection - there's not much
difference in performance.
In fact, APPC is slightly faster for reasons, discussions of which is
beyond the scope of this note.

PS. By the way, there's an APPC applet called AFTP - SNA replica of FTP.
I did not notice any difference in performance between AFTP over SNA and
FTP over TCP.

    Best regards,

          Alexei Pytel



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Earl [SMTP:johnearl@toolnet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 3:30 AM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      Re: What ids the performance comparison of FTP to other
> transfers?
> 
> About a year ago, on a couple of V3R1 AS/400's I benchmarked a very
> large file (I
> don't remember the file size) using both SNADS and FTP over a 4MB
> tokenring.
> 
> Using SNADS it was just under 45 minutes.
> Using FTP it was just over 6 minutes.
> 
> 18 years of being an SNA bigot went right out the window.  I embraced
> TCP/IP
> wholeheartedly.
> 
> jte
> 
> boothm@ibm.net wrote:
> 
> > How does the performance of FTP compare to other methods used to
> transfer
> > large files from one AS/400 to another?
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > boothm@ibm.net
> > Booth Martin
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > +---
> > | 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
> > +---
> 
> 
> 
> --
> John Earl
> PowerTech Toolworks
> johne@toolnet.com
> 253-858-7388
> 
> Riley Nichole Earl, Born 7/6/98 - 8lb 11oz.  Already an AS/400 fan!
> --
> 
> 
> +---
> | 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
> +---
+---
| 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
+---