Re: Printing question

["Steve McKay" <Steve.McKay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vern wrote:
"Dumb question time - is there any point to the printers being different
types? We have no control over this, right?"

"Am trying an experiment with remote outqs."

Vern -

Not sure what you meant by "the printers being different types".

When TCP/IP printing was originally introduced on the '400, remote outqs
were the (only) way to go.  In the last few years, however, IBM has
enhanced the IP printing implementation so that printer devices of type
*LAN are, in most cases, the preferred method of TCP/IP printing.  I say
"in most cases" because there are shops where it is necessary to do LPR/LPD
printing via remote outqs.  I don't know if your shop fits in this category
or not.  If it does not fit in this category, I suggest investigating the
use of *LAN type printer devices.  If your shop *does* fit in this
category, read on.

The 'writers to autostart' parm of the CRTOUTQ command makes absolutely no
sense to me.  Here's why:
If I am creating an outq with this command and giving it an IP address
(this is what makes it a remote outq), there is only one IP address that I
can provide per outq.  If I start more than one writer pointed at the same
IP address the LPR daemon on the other end is going to be overwhelmed (or
at least whelmed) by the multiple LPD requests coming from those multiple
writers.  (This is why you were seeing RUN and DLYW statuses (statii?).)
Apparently, you've come to this same conclusion, based on your statement "
they are all going to the same LPD port, so what can you expect?"  When I
use RMTOUTQs, I only start one writer for this very reason.

Again, unless you have an immovable obstacle which forces you to use
RMTOUTQ, you should be using CRTDEVPRT DEVCLS(*LAN).

HTH,

Steve