× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Larry....

That's an interesting post, and it contradicts what I've heard in the
past. Namely that writing to a *DTAARA is faster than writing to a
table due to the lack of RDMS overhead.

Was the *DTAARA in question journaled by chance? I could understand
if the journal entries for the DTAARA were forced to disk as the same
thing happens for a journaled file that's updated without using
commitment control. I don't believe you can use commitment control on
a DTAARA...

The idea that a DTAARA is always automatically forced to disk seems to
go against the grain of single level store.

Is this documented by IBM somewhere?

Charles

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Use them infrequently but have discovered one technical difference
between the use of a *DTAARA and a table.

If you write to a *DTAARA the system forces the write to disk. Now if
you have write cache on your disk controllers the write to that cache is
considered 'well enough' and processing continues. However if you have
no cache (as a low end system with mirrored disk might have) then the
write must be actually to disk. When using for a 'next order' number and
such things this is no problem, however if you are updating the *DTAARA
with (say) current record position in a massive table (for crash
recovery for example) then EVERY record position gets forced to disk and
that slows the job *DRAMTICALLY. If you are using a table or traditional
database file then the O/S caches that data preventing every write from
hitting physical disk.

Potentially a rare case I grant you but finding it out at 2AM (when I
did) was not pleasant.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

On 5/13/2011 11:17 AM, Birgitta Hauser wrote:
Hi guys,



we just had a discussion about using data areas.

In my opinion they are not heavily used or needed.

I either create a table/physical file or store the information in global
variables in a specific service program. The data within these global
variables is set and retrieved by calling procedures.



I’m just curious, are you using data areas (heavily) or not?



Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards



Birgitta Hauser



"Shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." (Les
Brown)

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." (Derek Bok)

"What is worse than training your staff and losing them? Not training them
and keeping them!"



--
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.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.