Re: cp or ftp which is faster to transfer files between iseries?

[DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I should probably look before I say this but maybe we should create a 
Wiki item on this.

There is no 'one size fits all' solution here. Sure FTP sends the 
fastest but as you and Rob mention it requires you do work beforehand 
with QSYS.LIB objects. Also it tells you bupkis for errors unless you 
read the output log which is not simple. Can use any userID and password 
though, but it gets placed in a plain text spot. Can connect WAAAY back 
in O/S version though for IFS stuff.

SAVRST* has the overhead of starting remote jobs AND it can ONLY push 
(not pull) AND it requires SNA but is easy to use in a program and 
monitoring for error is easy. Needs same user ID and password.

I was pleased with QFileSvr.400 performance which has NOT always been 
this good and the old 2G filesize limit is gone, but again it's not a 
QSYS.LIB solution. Straight up easy to use though and setup is minimal. 
Does require same USERID and PASSWORD on both systems but it can push or 
pull.

I wouldn't use NFS for this normally as there is too much setup involved 
but to make an entire directory tree available to another machine for 
programmatic reference this would be a good choice. And can anyone 
actually explain NFS Security. :-)

I wouldn't use QNTC between IBM i, ever.

Surprising  how much slower cp was than CPY in some uses.

        - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 1/2/2016 8:13 AM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:

> Thanks, Larry
>
> Interesting results - I've always liked the convenience of the SAVRST*
> commands - I'm not aware of a single-command solution, especially for
> library system objects - unless one counts QFileSvr.400 and the CPY CL
> command.
>
> Of course, with FTP and library system objects, one has to put them into
> a SAVF first - which takes a little time, SAVRST* commands effectively
> do that on your behalf.
>
> Cheers in the New Year!
> Vern
>
> On 1/1/2016 11:22 PM, DrFranken wrote:
> > Vern,
> >
> > Nope. That requires SNA is all set up and in this case, it's TCP, All
> > TCP and Nothing bu TCP. :-)
> >
> > BUT Just for you I cranked up Extenders and gave that a spin.
> >
> > FTP Still fastest as I expected.
> >
> > That said, SAVRST did better than I expected. With the large file
> > about 35% longer than FTP. With the small file it was terrible almost
> > 7 times longer likely due to the overhead of starting communications
> > and starting the receiving job on the target system. That overhead is
> > the same amount of time with a little object or a large object.
> >
> > As one further test I also saved the large object into a save file
> > with no compression so it's almost exactly the same size. I then used
> > SAVRSTOBJ to move that file and it was actually 5 seconds(5%) faster
> > than SAVRST of the IFS file.
> >
> >
> >         - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
> >
> > www.Frankeni.com
> > www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
> > www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
> >
> > On 1/1/2016 9:26 PM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
> >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > > Did you have a shot at using SAVRSTOBJ or SAVRSTLIB or SAVRST?
> > >
> > > Vern
> > >
> > > On 1/1/2016 4:06 PM, DrFranken wrote:
> > > > Here you are not using NFS you are using the Netserver (/QNTC).
> > > >
> > > > I did some testing at one point between two IBM i 7.1 systems. They
> > > > are local so GbE between them. The files moved were a 300MB IFS file
> > > > and a 4GB IFS File.
> > > >
> > > > In order of fastest to slowest:
> > > >
> > > > FTP            Basline (1.0)
> > > > CPY QFileSvr.400    17% Slower (*1) (*3)
> > > > CPY over NFS         30% Slower
> > > > scp            100% Slower (*2)
> > > > cp over QNTC        300% Slower
> > > > CPY over QNTC        300% Slower
> > > > cp QFileSvr.400     325% Slower
> > > > cp with NFS        550% Slower
> > > >
> > > > (*1) = each type is this percentage additional time than the baseline.
> > > > (*2) = scp was not reliable with the 4G File. Fails half the time.
> > > > (*3) = QFileSvr.400 actually won the small file by 0.3 second.
> > > >
> > > > cp is the cp command in QP2TERM
> > > > CPY is the IBM i CPY command
> > > >
> > > > Observations:
> > > >
> > > > 1) I did not expect QFileSvr.400 to be this good. It surprised me.
> > > > However look at the massive difference when using that file system
> > > > with QP2TERM! Over 3 times longer!
> > > >
> > > > 2) Also note how slow cp is over NFS while NFS itself was close the
> > > > performance of QFileSvr.400
> > > >
> > > > 3) These were not Save Files, I believe they transfer more slowly when
> > > > the target is in /QSYS.LIB
> > > >
> > > > 4) Your Mileage May Vary!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
> > > >
> > > > www.Frankeni.com
> > > > www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
> > > > www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
> > > >
> > > > On 12/31/2015 7:47 PM, tim wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > im using nfs. here is example of cp command syntax. i am copying
> > > > > savf to
> > > > > another iseries.
> > > > >
> > > > > STRQSH CMD('cp /qsys.lib/qgpl.lib/ftplib.file
> > > > > /qntc/10.0.0.93/root/iseriesbackup/QS36F')
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/31/2015 6:43 PM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
> > > > > > What is the context? I know of cp as a QShell or PASE command and not
> > > > > > aware of it being used between servers - what are you using to make
> > > > > > the servers visible to each other? NFS? QFileSvr.400?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vern
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/31/2015 4:54 PM, tim wrote:
> > > > > > > cp or ftp which is faster to transfer files between iseries?