On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:20 AM, McKown, John wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Betten
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question
There can be a slight decrease in performance when you
increase the number
of sortworks. Going from say 32 to 48 or 64 probably won't
have a major
impact. However, jumping to something like 128 or 255, you
will see a more
noticable impact. If you want to send me the sysout from the
sort, I can
take a look and see if there's any additional tuning we could
do to improve
performance and/or decrease the sortwork requirement.
Have a nice day,
Dave Betten
We could of used you 20+ years ago we were sorting huge amounts of
data (for the day). We kept bumping up against the max. We finally
had no alternative to break the sort into smaller ones. This was one
of the many reasons we went with Syncsort. I liked it at the time but
over the years DFSORT has in many ways either caught up or surpassed
it. If it hadn't been for the huge sort we did the company probably
stayed with DFSORT.
The other issue we had with DFSORT was that the demo tape they sent
out had a MP bug in it and it would at random times go into a
unending wait. We were (apparently) the only MP shop at the time. I
will grant the problem was only MP oriented and that is why it took
as long as it did to get the documentation and other info off to the
DFSORT people to get the problem resolved. We could no wait and we
finally decided on SYNCSORT.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
