server stages vs parallel stages

Post questions here relative to DataStage Enterprise/PX Edition for such areas as Parallel job design, Parallel datasets, BuildOps, Wrappers, etc.

Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy

Post Reply
agpt
Participant
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:53 am

server stages vs parallel stages

Post by agpt »

Why it is so that we do have some stages in parallel but not in server? ?Parallel jobs are meant to use benefits of parallelism but and running them as server job might not give that benefit. Bu still why they are not available at all?
chulett
Charter Member
Charter Member
Posts: 43085
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:34 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Post by chulett »

Because... they're not? Seriously, not really sure what kind of an answer you were expecting. The two products have completely different origins, philosophies and architectures so the vast majority of the stages specific to PX wouldn't really apply in the Server world. Common ones do, of course, like sort and aggregator.

Even if they could be, IBM won't really be investing much (if any) new R&D monies in the Server product as PX is their tool for the future. Out of curiousity, did you have an example or two in mind?
-craig

"You can never have too many knives" -- Logan Nine Fingers
agpt
Participant
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:53 am

Post by agpt »

chulett wrote:Because... they're not? Seriously, not really sure what kind of an answer you were expecting. The two products have completely different origins, philosophies and architectures so the vast majority of the stages specific to PX wouldn't really apply in the Server world. Common ones do, of course, like sort and aggregator.

Even if they could be, IBM won't really be investing much (if any) new R&D monies in the Server product as PX is their tool for the future. Out of curiousity, did you have an example or two in mind?
,


Craig,

So how do we decide whether to implement server or parallel job for example say for sorting? Does it depend on the whether i want to use parallelism facility or not? and if this is the case that IBM won't be spending R&D money at 2 places, why do we have even few common jobs?

For an example why can't we have SCD or compress stage in server ?

PX is tool for future? is it mean Server is going to be obsolete?
ray.wurlod
Participant
Posts: 54607
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by ray.wurlod »

Not obsolete. Some functionality (such as Connectors) will find its way into server jobs. But the server job architecture does not warrant the "one task, one stage type" functionality of parallel jobs. Rather, server jobs tend to use the Transformer stage as the workhorse.
IBM Software Services Group
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.
Post Reply