Is the data going to be stored in a standalone file? If so and the storage filesystem is NTFS, have them turn on NTFS file and folder compression for that folder or just the datasets. It is built in to Windows and will transparently compress the whole dataset and not just blank space fields. If it is linux/unix, there are few filesystems that support file compression as well.
Is the data going to be stored in a database - mariadb/mysql, DB2, etc. ? Many database products have data compression that can be used and is transparent to application and will be a better choice. -----Original Message----- >From: John McKown <john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> >Sent: Dec 15, 2016 8:25 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: how to: convince programmer something else is better. > >I'm having a bit of a problem convincing a COBOL programmer to "not do" >something because, IMO, there is a better way. However, it almost seems >like he is not hearing me. > >Some background. We have an in-house written RLE blank compression routine >which we use for some selected data sets. These data sets are known to have >large sequences of blanks in the records. We have used this program for >over 25 years (it was here when I came here). So this predates SMS >compression by a couple of decades. It was also used because, back in that >day, VSAM KSDS data sets were limited to 2 GiB. Oh, the program is written >in HLASM. > >Well, we are getting off of z/OS to Wintel. Regardless of cost and time. >"So let it be written. So let it be done!" As part of this, we will need to >uncompress the data and transfer it to Windows. There are no problems with >that (other than screams from the SAN people about the size of the >resultant files). Part of this is using MicroFocus COBOL to do some of the >work (i..e port the COBOL programs to Windows). The aforementioned >programmer wants a COBOL version of the HLASM compression and decompression >routines. In fact, he has written the decompression routine. He wants me to >write a COBOL version of the compression routine. Which I am working on. >This is being done "just in case" they are needed (i.e. the SAN people >scream long & hard enough about space issues). However, MicroFocus supplies >3 different compression routines which can be called from COBOL. What I'm >trying to convince the programmer to do is write the Wintel COBOL versions >of the compression routines to take the same parameters as they have >historically, but to call the MIcroFocus routines within them to do the >actual compression and decompression. But, again, it is like he is just not >hearing me. > >Do any of the COBOL programmers out there have any idea how I can phrase >this information so that it makes better sense to him? I.e. convince him >that using the vendor compression routines, via a compatible interface >routine, is the way to go? > >-- >Heisenberg may have been here. > >http://xkcd.com/1770/ > >Maranatha! <>< >John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
