Re: Timing of SAVLIB/RSTLIB vs CPYLIB

[Evan Harris <auctionitis@xxxxxxxxx>]

Consider a CLRLIB followed by a SAVRSTLIB as it may be faster again
than doing a Save and then a Restore.

Also keep in mind that CPYLIB may not get everything because as Vern
pointed out it uses CRTDUPOBJ under the covers - not every object can
be duplicated.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  CPYLIB uses CRTDUPOBJ for every object. It has to determine the
> correct order for object dependencies, then it uses CRTDUPOBJ on each.
> RSTLIB, esp. if you have saved access paths, will be faster, because the
> SAV/RST code path is optimized for throughput.
>
> Vern
>
> On 9/9/2010 7:52 PM, Lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Curiosity question.
> >
> > Each night in the wee hours we create a test environment from a
> > production library, thus:
> >       SAVLIB PROD01 to QTEMP/SAVF
> >       CLRLIB TST01
> >       RSTLIB QTEMPSAVF to TST01
> >
> > It runs in about 41-45 minutes.
> >
> > Last night I had to do a (occasional) copy of T01 to T02.  I did this:
> >       CLRLIB T02
> >       CPYLIB T01 to T02
> >
> > It took 45 minutes.  I figured creating T02 this way would be quite a
> > bit faster than creating T01, but it wasn’t.
> >
> > T01 was created about 3-3:45 am.  T02 was created 4:30-5:15 am.  There
> > is really nothing else running at these times.
> >
> > Any thoughts on why the CPYLIB approach is not faster?   CPYLIB did seem
> > to do a lot of index rebuilding (observed in a test during the day.)
> > Maybe SAVLIB/RSTLIB is smarter about indexes and/or does more in parallel.
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.