home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU!DM06900
- Message-ID: <IBM-MAIN%92100721494207@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:37:34 CDT
- Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion list <IBM-MAIN@RICEVM1.BITNET>
- From: "David L. Merrifield" <DM06900@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
- Subject: Re: PLSORT versus SYNCSORT
- In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:14:21 CDT from <C134BCS@UTARLVM1>
- Lines: 25
-
- On Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:14:21 CDT Brad Stewart said:
- > I was curious if anyone had recently replaced SYNCSORT with PLSORT.
- > There are supposed to be significant cost savings by doing so. At one
- > time I had read that Phase Linear(vendor) was experiencing financial
- > troubles, and that support was difficult to obtain. Any comments/stories
- > appreciated. Thanks!
-
- We replacd CA-SORT with PLSORT a little over a year ago. At the time, we
- did some fairly thorough benchmarks (VM and MVS) for CA-SORT, PLSORT,
- SYNCSORT, and DFSORT as a part of the bid evaluation. We chose PLSORT
- and haven't regretted it a moment. It's stable, it's fast, and it's
- less expensive. This is not to say that any of the others (I'll exclude
- CA-SORT, since the object of our exercise was to replace it) were not
- also stable and fast. In fact, in our comparisons, PLSORT and SYNCSORT
- were very close in performance (PLSORT had a slight edge), with DFSORT
- surprisingly not far behind.
-
- While I can speak well of PLSORT, I urge you to do your own benchmarks
- in your own environment. "Actual mileage may vary." Newer releases of
- these sort packages may affect results, as will operation on different
- machines and versions of operating systems.
-
- -David L. Merrifield
- University of Arkansas
- <dm06900@uafsysb.uark.edu> or <DM06900@UAFSYSB.BITNET>
-