Re: Data Transfer

On 05 Sep 2013 13:18, Stone, Joel wrote:

CRPence on Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:07 PM wrote:

<<SNIP>> the CPYF to DDMF does not require exclusive allocation
<<SNIP>>

Please explain how the above is accurate.

If I use CPYF to copy 10,000 files, and they are all being copied
into one lib named Targetlib, then users MUST be locked out of
TargetLib from the time of the first CPYF *REPLACE until the
10,000th file is replaced, correct?

So in effect the entire TargetLib requires no users to have access
for the duration of the 10,000 CPYF executions.

Is this incorrect?

That is a projection of your perceived or implied requirements, not a requirement of the Copy File feature itself. I had responded there, only to the requirements imposed by the CPYF over DDM.

I warned later in my reply, of the potential, that irrespective the lax requirements of the CPYF, there may be additional concerns to ensure /transactional/ integrity [in the following snippet]:

<<SNIP>> The biggest problem I see with CPYF, is that use of CPYF
will not be able to deal with isolation nor generally /transactional/
update activity; at least not without great care, where the care
taken would likely be implemented with exclusive allocation of the
data. <<SNIP>>

Of course even with Save and Restore one could improperly deal with transactional integrity. An implication could have been made that Save and Restore also require exclusive allocation.... so the explicit claim with regard to CPYF requiring exclusive allocation is disingenuous, in an accurate comparison with Sav\Rst.