[Default] On 12 Oct 2017 09:03:14 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
[email protected] ([email protected]) wrote:

>Hi John
>
> Could you give us a sample of the ftp job or the rexx? 
>
>Thanks a lot !
A major consideration, at least on the z series side is the cpu and
MSU costs of doing the transfer with compression versus the costs of
doing it without compression.

Clark Morris
>
>Jason Cai
>
>
>>>?My first though is to "tune" your network. I'm assuming you are talking
>>>from z/OS to Linux via TCPIP over ethernet. ?From what little I know, most
>seem to use an MTU of 1500. You might get better throughput if you could
>configure the MTU to be larger. This is oft times called "jumbo frames" (
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbo_frame ).
> 
>Whether to compress or not is basically a trade off between how long it
>takes to compress-transfer-uncompress vs. just transfer. This will depend
>on the power of the boxes on each end and the "size of the pipe" between
>them.
> 
>Assuming a "large pipe" (that is 10 Gib/s or larger):
>I am not certain how you generate the list of files to be transferred. But
>what I would possibly do is multiple concurrent FTP jobs running at the
>same time. For example: job 1 in the job stream finds all the DSNs to be
>transferred. For each DSN, it creates an FTP "put" control card. Assuming
>REXX as the language of choice, each control card is recorded in a stem
>variable. Something like: ftp_control.0=<number of ftp control cards>;
>ftp_control.1="put ...."; and so on. Now determine the number of concurrent
>FTPs you want to do. Divide the number of ftp control cards by this number.
>Create a normal batch job where each job runs a single FTP step which has
>"n" ftp_control cards in it. Submit each job to z/OS using the internal
>reader. Have enough initiators running to run those jobs. Let them all (or
>a subset) run at one time. The extreme of this is to have each job do a
>single FTP. And have "n" initiators running those jobs. You could generate,
>say, 20 FTP jobs, and run 5 at a time by having 5 initiators set up &
>dedicated to running just those jobs (by dedicating a specific JOBCLASS to
>this purpose).
> 
>Anyway, I was just thinking that instead of serially compressing,
>transferring, and uncompressing the data; it might be faster with a "large
>pipe" to do multiple transfers concurrently.
> 
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to