|
Is PASE not a giant interpreter? Kinda like comparing basic interpreter to compiled basic. Everything should run faster using native code compared to interpreted code. Christopher Bipes Information Services Director CrossCheck, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:42 AM To: ADSM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: TSM on Linux hosted on i5 outperforms TSM running on i5/os PASE. We were running TSM 5.2.4 on i5/OS PASE. Since IBM dropped support for i5/OS PASE for TSM we migrated to a Linux lpar hosted on the same box. Running a newer version of TSM. Basically we carved out a Linux lpar out of the existing i5/os lpar and used the same exact hardware: 5704 card to IBM 2109-F16 SAN switch to IBM 3582-L23 tape drive. The time it takes to fill up a 3582 cartridge dropped from 6 hours to 3. Just goes to show you that the PASE API's for tape suck. And IBM freely admits this.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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 [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
