Re: SNADS over ANYNET TCP/ip

Message text written by INTERNET:MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Alexi writes  
>What do you mean ?
Improve SNADS performance, improve AnyNet performance, or inflate FTP
functionality to SNADS level ?

Of course, SNADS is slower, than FTP - but that is because of so many
things it does, which FTP does not.
Actually, raw transfer speed of SNADS is not much lower than FTP. Spooling
distribution, maintaining queues, processing distribution lists etc - this
is what takes time.

Take two extreme cases:
 - if you need to send one file to one destination, then FTP is MUCH faster
 - if you need to send a library-full of files to a 1000 target systems (in
different time zones, which can be up or down, with their links to your
system functional or not), then SNADS is MUCH faster.
<

*********************************************************************
Alexey

I understand your point.  However, I have clients that feel they have to
drop SNADS.  They want me to put together a solution for them.  

I understand that you work for IBM and SNADS is their baby.  But if one had
the ability to TCP a file(s) from System A to System B and did not have to
worry if System B was active or inactive.  I understand the overhead that
SNADS has but as the old saying goes, "There is more than one way to skin a
cat"    One could have an efficient method of qing data which was TCPd that
is more efficient than SNADS.  I believe our   QINBETWEEN system is more
efficient and could be  adapted to TCP/IP.

Peter H. O'Connor
PAE Inc.
7 Riverway Rd.
Salem, MA 01970-5343
978-744-8612
phoc@compuserve.com
www.paeinc.com
+---
| 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
+---