Obviously #2 is going to be faster, since the transaction may never even need to communicate with system B, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to the subject of this thread.
What exactly do you mean by "FICON CF links"? >>> Dave Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/21/2007 6:28 PM >>> Job A on system A issues static SQL query to DB2 on system B. Which is faster: 1) DDF call to DB2 on system B via APPC over FICON CTC or 2) Local call to DB2 member of datasharing group w/ FICON CF links? Considering the overhead of DRDA protocol and independent enclave creation/classification/scheduling, etc., I would guess option 2 is more efficient in terms of CPU and response time. I'm just not sure how to determine in theory to what degree. db -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FICON vs ESCON CTC's "Mark Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > Is there any advantage in migrating CTC's from ESCON to FICON? > > -- > Mark Jacobs > Time Customer Service > Tampa, FL > ------ SPEED!!! XCF signalling via Ficon CTC links well outperform CF structures. Others will benefit similarly (VTAM). Kees. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
