RE: source control and file systems (was RE: SAA Historical perspecti ve)

Rob,

As far as I understand it we were very "native" IFS.
The product being used was a cross platform port of
a C compiled EDI translator so both the program and
parsed files lived on the IFS. The difference between
NT and the 400 was startling since the same translation
would take 1 - 2 seconds on NT and a 1 - 2 minutes on
the 400. It made iterative development a pain in the
rear. Although the AS/400 was small it was not really
doing an interactive work at all, likewise the NT boxes
were nothing special. Performance analysis indicated
alot of memory and i/o churn. Maybe the record oriented
nature of the 400 rearing its head?

In terms of editing, we developed on the PC and ftped
the maps (bytecode) to the 400 so we did not do much editing
directly on the IFS.

Since that time I have not seen alot of IFS ports of
existing Unix / NT products to the 400 even tho they
should be feasible.

Konrad