RE: DDM experiences

[Bill Erhardt <ERHARDT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
We use DDM (over FTP) all of the time.  It is slower that locally accessed
files but that much slower.
Bill Erhardt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Barsa [SMTP:barsa@barsaconsulting.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:51 PM
> To:   midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject:      Re: DDM experiences
>
>
> No improvements, other than the fact that the hardware is much faster
> today.
>
> DDM is basically slow.  If you want to validate data from another system
> on
> a random basis interactively (so the gating factor is human delay), DDM is
> fine.  If you want to age your accounts receivable in a batch program
> where
> the A/R detail file is "Update Primary" (from an RPG perspective), DDM is
> too slow to be practical.
>
> We had a situation last weekend where we filled up all of the DASD on one
> system with only a QIC tape drive with a very large dump (over 100,000
> pages), so we created a source physical file on another system (where we
> have fast tape drives), and a DDM of it in the filled system, and then did
> CPYSPLF in batch.  It took over a day.
>
> Al
>
> Al Barsa, Jr.
> Barsa Consulting Group, LLC
>
> 400>390
>
> 914-251-1234
> 914-251-9406 fax
>
> http://www.barsaconsulting.com
> http://www.taatool.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                       Karen.Eder@idealind
>                       ustries.com                To:
> midrange-l@midrange.com
>                       Sent by:                   cc:
>                       midrange-l-admin@mi        Subject:  DDM experiences
>                       drange.com
>
>
>                       06/06/2002 02:59 PM
>                       Please respond to
>                       midrange-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am looking for some feedback and/or experiences with DDM files.  My
> previous experience using them was so-so and at least 8 years ago or so.
> Coworkers here have mixed opinions so I thought I'd see what this group
> had
> to say.  If any of you can offer any feedback, I sure would appreciate it.
>
> In case there are any recent major enhancements in this area, currently
> our
> systems are all running at 4.5; but if 5.1 had great improvements in this
> area, it could be considered.
>
> Thanks, Karen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--