RE: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ -- MIDRANGE-L

Charles

Isn't that API fun?

Doing 2 saves is not too big a deal - it is more like multiple saves to tape - or even SAVLIB with multiple libraries specified - the result is separate tape files. Of course, with SAVLIB, the library description and its contents are saved together in one file, as you said.

I might be more inclined to retrieve the library attributes to a user space and save that - this way you could create one with the same attributes, including authority, etc.

Maybe?
Vern

At 03:52 PM 2/22/2005, you wrote:

Rob,

I'd like to upgrade to v5r3.  But...

1) I'm not sure if Aldon works yet, they were waiting on a PTF from IBM last I heard 2) I won't have a window to upgrade till July anyway.

I'm hoping 1 will be fixed by July so I can upgrade then. ;-)

In the meantime, if I want to used the DVD-RAM in my preferred method, I need to write this program.

Now back to my question....

I think you are correct in that the SAVLIB command saves the contents of a library and the description. So really, I'd need to do both the SAVOBJ commands.

However, that would seem to require to separate runs of the API and two separate SAVFs.

I think I can live without the library description, as this is for archival not recovery purposes.

Charles Wilt
iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
ph: 513-573-4343
fax: 513-398-1121


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:31 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
>
>
> Well, I think you'd probably be better off doing the SAVOBJ
> of the library
> first.  That way if you have to restore you can get the
> definition of the
> library before you have to restore the objects within it.
>
> I had a bunch of other questions regarding your 300
> limitation but, as
> you've stated, your real desire is the compression.
>
> Please don't shoot me, but why not upgrade to V5R3 and be
> done with it?
> It's been out for quite awhile and probably doesn't have any
> more bugs
> left in it than V5R2 still does.  Granted, there are some design
> considerations with CPYTOIMPF and that genre.  But you'll
> have to face
> that demon sooner or later anyway.
>
> Rob Berendt
> --
> Group Dekko Services, LLC
> Dept 01.073
> PO Box 2000
> Dock 108
> 6928N 400E
> Kendallville, IN 46755
> http://www.dekko.com
>
>
>
>
>
> "Wilt, Charles" <CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 02/22/2005 03:44 PM
> Please respond to
> Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion \(E-mail\)"
> <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How does
>
> SAVOBJ OBJ(*ALL) LIB(MYLIB)
>
> and
>
> SAVOBJ OBJ(MYLIB) LIB(QSYS)
>
> compare to
>
> SAVLIB LIB(MYLIB)??
>
>
> Reason I'm asking is that I'm attempting to use the Save
> Object List API
> (QSRSAVO) in a custom SAVLIB command.
> The QSRSAVO command is equivalent to the SAVOBJ command, but
> without the
> 300 library name limit.
>
> Why am I doing this?  Simple, so I can save to a save file
> with medium
> compression at v5r2.
>
>
> TIA,
>
> Charles Wilt
> iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
> Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
> ph: 513-573-4343
> fax: 513-398-1121