Re: MIDRANGE-L Digest V4 #361

[Jim Langston <jimlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

True, Albert, as things sat, you didn't obtain any concrete benefit
from having the "server programs" do file I/O as far as the current
programs were concerned.

The benefit would come in down the line when it is decided to change
the database server.  Or make it an n-tiered system.  Perhaps someone
was just forward thinking.

If they decide to go to a different database server in the next year,
how are you going to feel putting back in all the code you took out?

Regards,

Jim Langston

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:24:27 -0700
From: "York, Albert" <albert.york@nissan-usa.com>
Subject: RE: Externalize DB/IO

I think this has gone far astray of my original point. I am not opposed to
moving data base processing to a separate process. In fact, I published an
article recently in Midrange computing ("Breaking up is not hard to  do -
moving your interactive processes to batch") in which I describe a process
for using server programs running in batch to process database requests.
Depending on how many users perform the same function, you can gain
significant performance improvements. 

My original point was that the "server programs" that we changed did nothing
but record I/O, which could have been handled just as easily in the calling
program.

Albert York
+---
| 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
+---