On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Gary Weinhold <[email protected]> wrote:
> NT services have a very short path length compared to most alternatives, > but are not as fast as a CVT or ECVT based anchor. However, if the data is > address-space or TCB related, rather than lpar-based, I wouldn't think CVT > or ECVT based anchors would work well. There are unsupported techniques to > access NT data more efficiently. > <shudder/> I remember the days of products fighting over use of the CVTUSER and TCBUSER fields. Name/Token is much better. And is GUPI as well. I would hate for a vendor (Scott works for one) to use these. What I have done in the past, is to dynamically create a subsystem; which creates an SSVT. I can then use that area for my own stuff. But finding the SSVT from a "random" address space would probably cost as much, if not more, than using a Name/Token. > > Gary > > > Gary Weinhold Senior Application Architect > DATAKINETICS | Data Performance & Optimization > Phone +1.613.523.5500 x216 > Email: [email protected] > > Visit us online at www.DKL.com > E-mail Notification: The information contained in this email and any > attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other > intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, > you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request > that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original > message from your mail system. > > __________ > On 2016-04-19 06:36, Willy Jensen wrote: > >> Interesting, I have seen N/T services being described as having a very >> short path length, and do not require you to set up a save area. I'm not so >> sure about using CVTUSER or like, someone else might want to use it too. >> >> Willy >> > -- "He must have a Teflon brain -- nothing sticks to it" Phyllis Diller Maranatha! <>< John McKown
