RE: SNA over IP (Anynet) Versus Native SNA

Chris,
When you switched from raw SNA to *Anynet, was it because you went from a 
10/100 line to a 1gb line?  If so, and you didn't see much of a 
difference, wouldn't that be sad?  Or was this because you had the same 
external communications (comm line) bottleneck?

Rob Berendt
-- 
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





Chris Bipes <chris.bipes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
02/23/2005 03:18 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
RE: SNA over IP (Anynet) Versus Native SNA






I did not see much of a difference when I switched to *Anynet from raw 
SNA.
Though I went from a 56K SDLC to two 128k FR circuits.  I find that SNADS
will use both routes while FTP will make use of only one.  Also both 
AS400's
at one location can connect directly to a third at a remote location 
instead
of passing through the direct connected one.  Really do not think that CPU
is hit but perhaps it will drive up the IOP CPU usage.

Chris Bipes

-----Original Message-----

I'm looking for information on SNA over IP versus native SNA in regards
to performance.  For example, it takes 1 hour to do a SAVRSTLIB while
hooked up using native SNA, how much longer would it take to do the same
SAVRSTLIB over anynet.   What kind of overhead are we looking at?  Any
information is appreciated.  Thank you.
-- 
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.