Re: SNADS over ANYNET TCP/ip

Hey Pete.

Maybe you just proved it yourself:


Peter H. O'Connor wrote:
> 
> While one can do SNADS over ANYNET, I am told that the performance is just
> for the birds.

Told by whom?  People that have used it?  If so, what do they use now? 
Betcha it's  tcp/ip stuff.

> Sending a file via TCP/IP is MUCH, MUCH  faster and takes
> less resources than sending the same file over SNADS.

Yes.  But the real important factor is that you don't have a large
configuration overhead to perform the FTP.  You ONLY need an address. 
If they are on and listening, you CAN connect.

SNADS will ONLY do this once properly configured.  If I gotta send
something NOW to some other machine, FTP lets me do it now.  In some of
the larger shops with SNADS I have to go to the "guru" and get special
dispensation and then wait two days while they configure and test the
connection.

> Does anyone care about the performance issue on SNADSing data via ANYNET to
> an IP address?  Would a better MORE EFFICIENT method of sending data that
> is more efficient be more important than trying SNADS over ANYNET?

Maybe an analogy:  Would you put your car on a flatbed truck and then
drive the truck to get to the store for milk?

-- 
===========================================================
R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr. -- IBM Certified AS/400 Administrator

-- The sum of all human knowledge is a fixed constant.
    It's the population that keeps growing!
+---
| 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
+---