Re: File size difference between PF and *SAVF

[DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think you can only specify *YES for save files which equates to *MED. 
For Virtual Optical you get *LOW *MED and *HIGH. Remember too that you 
can SAVACCPTH(*NO) as well which can save a bit on the space but at a 
penalty on restore.

Forgive typos-reply on an airplane and I'm too cheap to purchase the wifi.


        - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com
www.iInTheCloud.com

On 4/23/2015 3:07 PM, Scott Klement wrote:
> Yes, save files will always be bigger than the original PF unless you
> use compression.
>
> Try using DTACPR(*HIGH) (or *YES on older releases) when running the
> SAVxxx command to create your save file.  This enables compression that
> can significantly reduce the size of the save file.
>
>
> On 4/23/2015 2:00 PM, John McKee wrote:
> > This may be old stuff.  Just noticed today.  I had to transfer a large PF
> > from remote 520 to local.  Learned, in the past, that FTP does not retain
> > file definition, so created a save file and transferred it.  Paranoia
> > about
> > file content led to extracting the single file and spot checking.
> >
> > Never had the opportunity to do this before.  I thought a save file might
> > be a little smaller than original physical file.  Maybe somewhere, but
> > not
> > in this case.
> >
> > Save file size is 18586152960
> > Physical file size is 12014727168
> >
> > I expected the save file to be a little larger, to acomodate field
> > information.  I wasn't aware the difference could be this much.  I did
> > not
> > specify compression on the v5r3 system.
> >
> > Does the size difference seem unusual, or is that the norm?
> >
> > John McKee