Re: Here is SAVRSTLIB? (Timing of SAVLIB/RSTLIB vs CPYLIB)

[Evan Harris <auctionitis@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vern

It doesn't just send a savf - you can tell that because the restore
starts before the send process completes. It's also more efficient
space and time-wise when used to save and restore a library on the
same system.

Because the save commences shortly after the save starts it fiinishes
much sooner than the equivalent process of saving and then restoring;
it also uses less storage as the only disk required is the storage
buffer the save is written to and restored from.

I've used this on a couple of systems where I periodically needed to
take a snapshot of a library.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> SAVRSTLIB is part of an option of SS1 called Object Connect-I forget the option number-it's free-find out who can install it. But I don't see any advantage to that over SAVLIB/RSTLIB-that sends the SAVF to the destination-I just think there's extra overhead, but I don't know that for certain.
>
> Vern Hamberg
>
> Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G
>
> "Lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx" <lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > SAVRSTLIB I would like to try.  Unfortunately, the only place I can find
> > it on our V6R1 machine is in the QSYSV5R4M0 library.  Do we need to
> > install something extra?
> >
> > I used it in a formed job to move data between machines at V5R4, but
> > that was a much bigger shop with dedicated system programmers.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On 9/10/2010 1:45 PM, Evan Harris wrote:
> > > Consider a CLRLIB followed by a SAVRSTLIB as it may be faster again
> > > than doing a Save and then a Restore.