RE: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ

["Wilt, Charles" <CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob,

I'd like to upgrade to v5r3.  But...

1) I'm not sure if Aldon works yet, they were waiting on a PTF from IBM last I 
heard
2) I won't have a window to upgrade till July anyway.

I'm hoping 1 will be fixed by July so I can upgrade then. ;-)

In the meantime, if I want to used the DVD-RAM in my preferred method, I need 
to write this program.

Now back to my question....

I think you are correct in that the SAVLIB command saves the contents of a 
library and the description.  So really, I'd need to do both the SAVOBJ 
commands.

However, that would seem to require to separate runs of the API and two 
separate SAVFs.

I think I can live without the library description, as this is for archival not 
recovery purposes.

Charles Wilt
iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
ph: 513-573-4343
fax: 513-398-1121
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:31 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
> 
> 
> Well, I think you'd probably be better off doing the SAVOBJ 
> of the library 
> first.  That way if you have to restore you can get the 
> definition of the 
> library before you have to restore the objects within it.
> 
> I had a bunch of other questions regarding your 300 
> limitation but, as 
> you've stated, your real desire is the compression.
> 
> Please don't shoot me, but why not upgrade to V5R3 and be 
> done with it? 
> It's been out for quite awhile and probably doesn't have any 
> more bugs 
> left in it than V5R2 still does.  Granted, there are some design 
> considerations with CPYTOIMPF and that genre.  But you'll 
> have to face 
> that demon sooner or later anyway.
> 
> Rob Berendt
> -- 
> Group Dekko Services, LLC
> Dept 01.073
> PO Box 2000
> Dock 108
> 6928N 400E
> Kendallville, IN 46755
> http://www.dekko.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Wilt, Charles" <CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 02/22/2005 03:44 PM
> Please respond to
> Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> To
> "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion \(E-mail\)" 
> <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does
> 
> SAVOBJ OBJ(*ALL) LIB(MYLIB)
> 
> and 
> 
> SAVOBJ OBJ(MYLIB) LIB(QSYS)
> 
> compare to
> 
> SAVLIB LIB(MYLIB)??
> 
> 
> Reason I'm asking is that I'm attempting to use the Save 
> Object List API 
> (QSRSAVO) in a custom SAVLIB command.
> The QSRSAVO command is equivalent to the SAVOBJ command, but 
> without the 
> 300 library name limit.
> 
> Why am I doing this?  Simple, so I can save to a save file 
> with medium 
> compression at v5r2.
> 
> 
> TIA, 
> 
> Charles Wilt
> iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
> Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
> ph: 513-573-4343
> fax: 513-398-1121
>  
> 
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion 
> (MIDRANGE-L) mailing 
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion 
> (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> 
>