RE: What ids the performance comparison of FTP to other transfers?

[Neil Palmer <npalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Exactly !  SNADS has it's place due to the myriad features you can use
with it, and the way it runs in the background without grinding your
other users jobs to a halt as you FTP a 1GB file from your interactive
session !

In fact, even though we have direct TCP/IP between all AS/400's, and use
TELNET for interactive sessions, I decided to continue using SNADS for
file transfers, using AnyNet APPC over TCP/IP.  It also simplifies
sending files out over our WAN to a remote AS/400 and having it route
the file on to a customer using SNADS over a dial-up SDLC link from
remote 400 to customer 400.



Neil Palmer                                AS/400~~~~~      
NxTrend Technology - Canada   ____________          ___  ~     
Thornhill, Ontario,  Canada   |OOOOOOOOOO| ________  o|__||=   
Phone: (905) 731-9000  x238   |__________|_|______|_|______)   
Cell.: (416) 565-1682  x238    oo      oo   oo  oo   OOOo=o\   
Fax:   (905) 731-9202       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
mailto:NPalmer@NxTrend.com    AS/400  The Ultimate Business Server      
http://www.NxTrend.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pytel, Alexei [SMTP:pytela1@midas-kapiti.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 5:24 AM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      RE: What ids the performance comparison of FTP to other
> transfers?
> 
> 
> These benchmark results have nothing to do with SNA vs TCP/IP.
> It's just SNADS vs FTP. The difference being that SNA and TCP are
> network protocols, while SNADS and FTP are applications.
> 
> With SNADS you have much more service - asynchronous transfer, send it
> and forget it (system will take care), sending various objects types
> as
> opposed to sending only files etc.
> You have to pay for additional convenience. If you need just move the
> file from one location to another via direct connection (as opposed to
> several hops), don't mind looking at input inhibited indicator while
> your gigabyte file is being transferred, don't mind to start all over
> again (and do a cleanup manually) when your line goes down, etc - then
> FTP is clearly a better choice.
> Time is spent in SNADS for copying your file in an intermediate
> buffer,
> from where it can be sent/resent without your intervention.
> 
> When comparing apples to apples - sending data between two peer
> programs
> via APPC conversation or via TCP socket connection - there's not much
> difference in performance.
> In fact, APPC is slightly faster for reasons, discussions of which is
> beyond the scope of this note.
> 
> PS. By the way, there's an APPC applet called AFTP - SNA replica of
> FTP.
> I did not notice any difference in performance between AFTP over SNA
> and
> FTP over TCP.
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>           Alexei Pytel
> 
> 
> 
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---