RE: CPY vs FTP

["Stone, Joel" <Joel.Stone@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the info.  Could you comment on the duration for the FTP bottleneck?  Is this a few hours?  Or many hours?

Thanks


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Bronski
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:19 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: CPY vs FTP

The customer does daily backups of some large libraries that they then 
send across the country to a development system where they use the data 
for "testing". To be honest I dont REALLY know what they do with it. So 
it's a mix of data and objects but the compression is done on the binary 
save. (They also encrypt it) They then use standard FTP to push it to to 
a remote site - the FTP is the bottleneck and they have a short window. 
I did a quick lookup of some stats I have from them....a 25.4G file 
compressed to 7.2G. It took over 17m to compress - I dont have their 
machine specs to hand.

On 10/8/2013 6:32 PM, Stone, Joel wrote:
> Can you please elaborate on "35G daily"?
>
> Is this Iseries stuff?  Libs with a mix of data & pgm objects?  Or mostly text files?
>
> Are both boxes local?  Or over IP long distances?
>
> What is transport & commands used?
>
> SNDNETF?  FTP?
>
> Duration?
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Bronski
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:11 AM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: CPY vs FTP
>
> I have a customer that does ~ 35G daily.
>
> On 10/8/2013 4:48 PM, John Yeung wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Gary Thompson <gthompson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > maybe compress the file before the transfer ?
> > This is what I was going to suggest.  I must say I don't remember ever
> > having compressed anything as large as 3.5 GB, but text does compress
> > very well.
> >
> > John