Re: Time increase going from V5R4 to V7R1

[Scott Klement <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Craig,

I would start the troubleshooting by logging timestamps at each step of 
the process, and see where the hold-up is.  From there, you should be 
able to narrow it down to a particular thing that's slowing you down.

Also, the stuff you're using (sockets, IFS) are not "Scott's Stuff". 
They are system APIs provided by IBM.  I deserve no more credit for 
those than I do for the RPG compiler.

Unless you're using HTTPAPI or FTPAPI?  Those are my fault.  But, not 
the system APIs!



On 1/25/2011 1:56 PM, Craig Jacobsen wrote:
> We upgraded over the weekend and when the distribution department started
> shipping the time to produce a label increased drastically from 2-3 seconds
> to 15-20 seconds.
>
> Here is what happens when a Fed Ex overnight or next day is requested:
>
> 1)      Fed Ex Server is contacted with a request for a shipment from the i
> using FedEx API.
>
> 2)      Fed Ex Server creates a label (file) and responds to the i with the
> tracking number and some additional info.
>
> 3)      i FTPs to the server and gets the label table (MMDDYY+Tracking
> number + . + type (288=ZPLII, 299=EPL2 based on printer to print) and puts
> on the i IFS directory /FedEx
>
> 4)      The file is translated to EBCDIC, parsed, some control characters
> are put in depending on ZPL,EPL, and then translated back to ASCII
>
> 5)      A socket is established to the printer (contained in a table) where
> it is to print (this bypasses the i printer management to speed it up),
>
> 6)      The table is passed directly to the printer and printed.
>
> 7)      The table is deleted from the IFS (since it's also stored on the
> FedEx Server, no need to take up space)
>
> The network people looked to see if contacting the server or FTP from the
> server to the i was taking longer and it was not.
>
> I have a feeling the problem is with the IFS portion starting at #4.
>
> I used Scott's stuff for the IFS manipulation and the socket connections,
> it's been working fine for at least 3 years with the 2-3 second response.
>
> Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this type of problem on an
> upgrade from V5R4M0 to V7R1M0.
>
> I am going to test just the portion from 4 down tomorrow and was hoping
> maybe a PTF or something was the problem.
>
>
>
> TIA,
>
>
>
> Craig