On Sun, 27 May 2007 16:26:10 +0000, Dave Salt wrote: >>To manipulate z/OS files on my workstation, I use NFS client on the >>workstation and NFS server on z/OS. So, what are the respective merits of:
>>WSA? >>NFS? >>Samba? > >I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'manipulate'. > Create, edit, compile, execute, copy, delete, etc. > ... My earlier comment was >that I prefer WSA over FTP and IND$FILE to perform file transfers, and I >haven't used NFS or Samba so I can't comment on them. But here's what I like >about using the WSA to perform file transfers: > It's a different paradigm. With NFS, my workstation files appear as if they were UNIX files on z/OS. I can edit them with OEDIT. I can list them with any utility that lists z/OS UNIX files (alas, not Simplist). I can use them as SYSIN or catenated in SYSLIB for HLASM assemblies. I can copy them with IEBGENER (alas, not IEBCOPY). Likewise, with NFS I can use workstation tools on MVS data sets and PDS[E] members. It's a different paradigm; usually I don't need to think in terms of performing a "file transfer". the workstation files appear to be in filesystems mounted on z/OS; the z/OS data sets appear to be filesystems mounted on the workstation. >1) Convenience. I can initiate file transfers from any object list I happen >to be in; > I think it's even more convenient to be able to operate on files from either platform without any perceived "file transfer" operation. R.S. has followed up with reasons he finds Samba preferable to NFS. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
