Paul Gillis wrote: > Greg, > > I used to get about 80% when zipping SMF data, haven't done that for a while > and never considered the CPU cost as I had to get the data under 2Gb. The > reasons are now obsolete. The zip engine I used on MVS was ISPZIP from ASE. > I may still have the performance numbers somewhere. > > Cheers, > Paul Gillis
Hi Paul, Yes, I've seen that software used to great effect for years, also. And I see that Scott has posted about the advantages of zipping SMF data. All great stuff, and I concur completely. What I was really fishing for was user experiences with using DFSMS compressed extended-format sequential data sets. And if that doesn't trigger a response, perhaps we can start a thread about compressable (as I recall seeing in an IBM manual) vs compressible (the spelling a spell-checker (MSWord?) okays). As I may have said, I would expect the latest and greatest z hardware to be able to deliver compression ratios comparable to zipping in only a fraction of the CPU time. Maybe the CPU time aspect is hard to measure, and I don't think zipping is that much of an expensive process anyway, but I _am_ hoping that someone can report of the level of compression being achieved. If I tell people that using compressable extended-format is a superior solution to zipping files in terms of overall computer resources (with disk space being a large part of that), am I telling fibs? Cheers, Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
