Gil Peleg wrote:
Radoslaw, For small XCF signalling message sizes, CTC will give performance very close and sometimes even better than a CF structure. This behavior is sort of documented in a WSC Flash. Gil.
For XCF signaling, CTCs can provide better performance because, unlike a signaling structure in a CF, CTCs are a dedicated resource. However, this fact is hardly relevant in a discussion of GRS STAR vs RING.
The algorithms are completely different for STAR (hash table, etc.) than for RING. And, you're comparing an XES implementation (STAR) to an XCF-only implementation (RING). These intrinsic differences are present regardless of how your XCF signaling is configured.
For our parallel sysplex running in real LPARs, we use CTCs for XCF signaling (for performance). For our emulated parallel sysplexes under z/VM, we use CF structures for XCF signaling (easier to configure). In all cases, we use GRS STAR.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Edward E. Jaffe | | | Mgr, Research & Development | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 | | 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 | | Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
