|
Is PASE not a giant interpreter? Kinda like comparing basic interpreter to compiled basic. Everything should run faster using native code compared to interpreted code. Christopher Bipes Information Services Director CrossCheck, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:42 AM To: ADSM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: TSM on Linux hosted on i5 outperforms TSM running on i5/os PASE. We were running TSM 5.2.4 on i5/OS PASE. Since IBM dropped support for i5/OS PASE for TSM we migrated to a Linux lpar hosted on the same box. Running a newer version of TSM. Basically we carved out a Linux lpar out of the existing i5/os lpar and used the same exact hardware: 5704 card to IBM 2109-F16 SAN switch to IBM 3582-L23 tape drive. The time it takes to fill up a 3582 cartridge dropped from 6 hours to 3. Just goes to show you that the PASE API's for tape suck. And IBM freely admits this.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.