RE: Re[2]: Correlating *SAVF "records" to FTP job I/O count

["Bale, Dan" <DBale@xxxxxxxx>]

The two boxes involved in my latest testing are both at V4R3.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Berendt [SMTP:rob@dekko.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 6:10 PM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      RE: Re[2]: Correlating *SAVF "records" to FTP job I/O count
> 
> Dan, what version of OS/400 are you running?  I forget.  There 
> have been numerous enhancements to TCP/IP over the years.  All 
> things being equal between the 400's, then TCP/IP should smoke 
> SAVRSTOBJ.  By things being equal I mean does SNA and TCP/IP use 
> the same line descriptions on both 400's?
> I use SAVRSTOBJ for most of my distribution because I've not 
> written/purchased/downloaded TCP/IP equivalent wrappers.
> 
> 
> 
> DBale@lear.com on 05/08/2000 04:33:04 PM
> Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
> cc:    
> Fax to:       
> Subject:      RE: Re[2]: Correlating *SAVF "records" to FTP job I/O count
> 
> Well, re: #3, I _did_ specify AS/400-to-AS/400.  <g>
> 
> But, otherwise, it is my uneducated guess that whenever I can use FTP for
> AS/400-to-AS/400 object transfers, I can also use the SAVRSTOBJ command.
> Your #2 makes it sound like that is not the case.
> 
> You and I agree on using the "right tool for the job".  How would this
> affect your #1?
> 
> - Dan Bale
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:       eric.delong@pmsi-services.com
> [SMTP:eric.delong@pmsi-services.com]
> > Sent:       Monday, May 08, 2000 3:52 PM
> > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> > Subject:    Re[2]: Correlating *SAVF "records" to FTP job I/O count 
> > 
> >      Hmmm, I believe this definitely fits the "right tool for the job" 
> >      category. Some thoughts on why NOT to use SAVRSTxxx commands:
> >      
> >      1. More shops going fully TCP/IP.
> >      2. Need to transmit to remote host via the internet.
> >      3. Need to transmit to non-as400 hosts as well.
> >      
> >      Don't get me wrong, the SAVRSTxxx commands are great timesavers, 
> >      given the proper environment. They aren't, however, your one-stop 
> >      solution to file/object distribution. 
> >      
> >      jmo,
> >      eric.delong@pmsi-services.com
> > 
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> > 
> > So, I don't get it.  Why would anyone choose using FTP to transmit
> objects
> > across AS/400s over SAVRSTOBJ?
+---
| 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
+---