OP: >In to days Z/OS environment is BDAM faster than VSAM. I understand that >IBM does not recommend the use of BDAM, however for those installations >that are heavy Assembler and continue to use BDAM has there been any >bench marks for the use of BDAM ?
>The I/OS Subsystem and Access methods have all improved since there >inception. So I'm wondering why some mainframe software providers continue >to choose BDAM over VSAM. Multiple questions. 1) Yes, BDAM is definitely faster than VSAM for some applications. VSAM is faster than BDAM for some other applications. 2) Most likely benchmarks have been run, however I have no evidence on hand. 3) Choosing BDAM over VSAM or visa versa can have multiple factors. For critical log files, I would definitely prefer BDAM. I want to know the data is written to disk before continuing, and not be left to wondering of VSAM got around to chaining some buffers yet. Can I force VSAM to write those buffers? Maybe, but it takes a little extra effort I wouldn't have to do with BDAM. Is it just random keyed records I want to read and write? Then VSAM might be the choice. I think the understanding that IBM does not recommend the use of BDAM may be correct - literally. Unless some document states, "IBM recommends you use BDAM for . . .," then that statement is true. They may not recommend against it either - or do they? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
