Wouldn't it take a hour to send 3.5 MB at 9600 baud? On the surface it would seem that your site didn't modify much in any one day. But then, most of us may be supprised by how little is actually updated.
Back in the '70s there was an PNET/RJE function called RTPSEND and RTPRECV in which you could send files. There was an option to send binary data, such as packed fields, where it took 4 bits of every byte of data, and prefixed it with some other bits. The object was to make sure you didn't trip over any protocol control characters. That would have halfed the speed again. A few years ago, when the DDR piece of code became available to store the DDR on disk, and then FTP it, sure brought back some bad memories (last time I tried to FTP a DDR file we had 10 mbs connections....wake me up when it's over<G>) BTW, I'm not attacking any responses. I really assume that eveything has been done, or attempted to be done by someone at sometime. I've done a lot of crap in my 30+ years, that "seemed good at the time". Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/11/2006 2:07 PM >>> In the early 1990's we consolidated a data center from Sydney into Philadelphia. We used SYBACK to do a full dump of specific (most) minidisks to tape and shipped the tapes. We then performed daily incrementals to disk, and sent the incrementals via RSCS, via a 9600 baud line at most. I think we had a 9600 baud line that was shared for RSCS and VTAM traffic, but the telecom part wasn't mine to worry over. Each minidisk intended to move was a separate file and sent via SENDFILE. There were service machines written to send and receive them. I think the first incrementals arrived before the tapes. In any case, we kept track of different day's incrementals for a whole week and applied them as they finished arriving. The line was kept very busy and watched closely, but it was easy to restart if it dropped. Our actual cutover the following weekend went fairly quickly and met whatever target we had, which I certainly think wasn't enough to allow for backing up, shipping, and applying the tapes. We repeated the effort consolidating another data center the following year. That data center, in Toronto, was closer, but larger. The Sydney effort went well so it was used for Toronto, but I think we had to put in a second 9600 baud line, or bump the line up. (Or maybe it was a higher speed line to begin with.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Greenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: Re: Real core > On: Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:35:50AM -0400,Phil Smith III Wrote: > > } Yeah, we had a customer who wanted to move 100TB from Japan to New > Jersey; my recommendation was "Crate the Shark and fly it there". I > calculated that if it took 24 hours door-to-door, that was about > 1GB/second throughput. Latency was pretty bad, though... > > Back in the dark ages when 9600 was a high speed modem, I was asked > about getting product dumps from (I think) Florida to Callifunny. The > dumps were large enough that it was faster to ship a tape > counter-to-counter than to send that many bytes at 9600. > > -- > Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 > 1353 > Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since > CP-67 > Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians > Owner:Chinook-L > Retired at the beach Asst > Owner:Sibernet-L
