|
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] We use DDM (over FTP) all of the time. It is slower that locally accessed files but that much slower. Bill Erhardt > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Barsa [SMTP:barsa@barsaconsulting.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:51 PM > To: midrange-l@midrange.com > Subject: Re: DDM experiences > > > No improvements, other than the fact that the hardware is much faster > today. > > DDM is basically slow. If you want to validate data from another system > on > a random basis interactively (so the gating factor is human delay), DDM is > fine. If you want to age your accounts receivable in a batch program > where > the A/R detail file is "Update Primary" (from an RPG perspective), DDM is > too slow to be practical. > > We had a situation last weekend where we filled up all of the DASD on one > system with only a QIC tape drive with a very large dump (over 100,000 > pages), so we created a source physical file on another system (where we > have fast tape drives), and a DDM of it in the filled system, and then did > CPYSPLF in batch. It took over a day. > > Al > > Al Barsa, Jr. > Barsa Consulting Group, LLC > > 400>390 > > 914-251-1234 > 914-251-9406 fax > > http://www.barsaconsulting.com > http://www.taatool.com > > > > > > > Karen.Eder@idealind > ustries.com To: > midrange-l@midrange.com > Sent by: cc: > midrange-l-admin@mi Subject: DDM experiences > drange.com > > > 06/06/2002 02:59 PM > Please respond to > midrange-l > > > > > > > > I am looking for some feedback and/or experiences with DDM files. My > previous experience using them was so-so and at least 8 years ago or so. > Coworkers here have mixed opinions so I thought I'd see what this group > had > to say. If any of you can offer any feedback, I sure would appreciate it. > > In case there are any recent major enhancements in this area, currently > our > systems are all running at 4.5; but if 5.1 had great improvements in this > area, it could be considered. > > Thanks, Karen > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing > list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing > list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. --
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact copyright@midrange.com.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.