Re: V5R2: Source now allowed in the IFS

I think you're referencing the difference between the old filesystems
such as QDLS, and the newer IFS filesystems, such as "root" and
"QOpenSys".  However, these new filesystems have been around since, I
believe, V3R1.

But, at any rate, the original poster said that it was "so inefficient on
disk space", he didn't say that it was slow.  I would've understood his
concern if he was talking about speed.

My tests have shown that even on V3R2, I could've saved a lot of disk
space by storing my source in the IFS rather than in a SRC-PF.

Of course, disk is cheap, and the compiler didn't allow you to specify an IFS
path back then, so I went for convienience and used the traditional PF
approach.  I just wonder why he said that disk space was inefficient...
I'm wondering if there's something that I'm not taking into account?


On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
>
> V5R2 has brought a new implementation for IFS. The old one had more layers
> between the user and the data, so was slower. I think (might be mistaken
> here) that is was based on dataspace technology, just like physical files.
> The new one is faster and more space-efficient.
>
> So, with the new storage type and variable-length records (CR-LF
> delimiters, e.g.), there is great potential for saving space. But you have
> to be on V5R2.
>