Have you considered using CONNECT:Direct? -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FTP Append
Alan, > > You mean your VM systems? I meant MVS systems. We only have VM at one location. TRACERTE is disabled between the network where VM resides and the non-MVS systems at the centers where the FTPs originate, so I substituted the MVS system in the center in question. Not a perfect fit, but it is about the best that I can do. I figured that, since it is a private network and was in a period of low activity, it would be a good approximation of the reverse of the route taken by the FTP. > > For a minidisk, the APPEND request causes the FTP server to set the file > pointer to the end of the file. It doesn't actually "open" the file. When > the data connection is established, and the data arrives, the writes are > done starting at EOF. In theory, an error on the data connection can't > corrupt anything. It would be educational to know if the same problem > would occur if you used the SFS server instead of minidisk. > > > Actually, there is a third question: Which component(s) do I open the > PMR(s) > > against? > > Open it against the FTP server; it's the only thing that touches the > files. Right? You don't have MW minidisks or something else that sneaks > in and steals the minidisk from the FTP server? As stated originally, the target already is, and always has been, an SFS directory, not a minidisk. Besides, you can only have null files in SFS. We already have two components that touch the files. Thus the question, "which component?" > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott I am looking at changing things after our holiday season freeze is lifted. I may update the FTP server to allow FTP to reader files and have the client code revised, at least for the problem center, to send the files to be appended to a service machine's reader queue. The service machine could then do the append independently of the FTP process. Another question, is there any time in the append process where, by design, the record count appears to be zero for even the briefest of periods? In other words, is there a window that has a crack in it? Richard Schuh -------------------------------------------------------- This message w/attachments (message) may be privileged, confidential or proprietary, and if you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, do not use or share it and delete it. Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Merrill Lynch. Subject to applicable law, Merrill Lynch may monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems. The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging with Merrill Lynch you consent to the foregoing. --------------------------------------------------------
