On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:34:16 -0700, Walter Marguccio <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Scott Rowe [email protected] > >> BTW, for small packets of data, I believe ESCON links are actually faster than FICON. >> I think I have seen a paper on this, but I can't remember where. > >You are right: > >http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/WP100743 > >"A comparison of these examples shows the ESCON CTCs are slightly faster >than the FICON Express CTCs for 1K messages but ESCON is slower when >compared to FICON Express 2 as well as the newer ISC3 and ICB4 links." > >Walter Marguccio >z/OS Systems Programmer >BELENUS LOB Informatic GmbH >Munich - Germany > So FICON is better with current technology regardless. But for those using "old" technology, does anyone know what the typical / average size of GRS XCF messages are in a ring? Scott, are you lurking? :-) Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[email protected] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
