Re: Here is SAVRSTLIB? (Timing of SAVLIB/RSTLIB vs CPYLIB)

Hi Evan,

"Because the save commences shortly after the save starts it fiinishes
much sooner than the equivalent process of saving and then restoring;..."

I'm sure you meant "Because the restore commences..."


On 10 September 2010 15:07, Evan Harris<auctionitis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Vern
>
> It doesn't just send a savf - you can tell that because the restore
> starts before the send process completes. It's also more efficient
> space and time-wise when used to save and restore a library on the
> same system.
>
> Because the save commences shortly after the save starts it fiinishes
> much sooner than the equivalent process of saving and then restoring;
> it also uses less storage as the only disk required is the storage
> buffer the save is written to and restored from.
>
> I've used this on a couple of systems where I periodically needed to
> take a snapshot of a library.
>
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Vernon Hamberg<vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

> > SAVRSTLIB is part of an option of SS1 called Object Connect-I forget the

> option number-it's free-find out who can install it. But I don't see any
> advantage to that over SAVLIB/RSTLIB-that sends the SAVF to the
> destination-I just think there's extra overhead, but I don't know that for
> certain.

> >
> > Vern Hamberg
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G