Re: Performance of SNDDST vs QtmmSendMail

Marilyn,
Its not really a question of SNDDST vs QtmmSendMail, but rather
a question of SNDDST vs an Application that uses QtmmSendMail API.

An application that uses this API has to build a Mime file in the
IFS which includes maybe lots of reads and writes, data reformatting,
code page translation and if necessary (for binary attachments)
CPU-consuming bit level encoding (e.g Base64). I have found that the
real issue of performance is how well these functions are programmed
for performance. This is not part of QtmmSendMail.

I have reviewed some code and written my own. I have see variations
of 50 fold all using the same API.

My only suggestion to you would be get a number of products on the
market on a trial basis and benchmark them.
Many of these products are reasonably priced.

hope this helps

Rod Orr

>>>>Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it is not the speed of sending that
is
the point - I am trying to reduce the overhead on the 400 so everything
else
doesn't slow to a crawl.  We have no third party utilities and management
does not want to spend any money on them.  The Lan is not an option either
as it is pretty much maxxed out. (again - no intentions of upgrading the
Lan).<<<<


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---