Hello Listers,
Wanted to check what everyone's opinion was on building full packages with the compression option ON. It has been a while since this topic was discussed here so I thought I would start a new thread.
Do you still do it and if you do, why do you do it ?
My personal opinion is that in today's technology landscape , where networks are much much faster and most FAT clients are virtual and in the same LAN as the Deployment Server , I don't see the need for compressing full packages in order to make my client installation marginally faster.
Using compression also does the following
- Makes Client Full build take longer
- Takes more space on the deployment server (since it is storing both the compressed and uncompressed directories)
- Requires you to periodically re-compress the parent full package so that it is up to date with the update packages that have been built since the original build.
What are your thoughts ?
Cheers
Wanted to check what everyone's opinion was on building full packages with the compression option ON. It has been a while since this topic was discussed here so I thought I would start a new thread.
Do you still do it and if you do, why do you do it ?
My personal opinion is that in today's technology landscape , where networks are much much faster and most FAT clients are virtual and in the same LAN as the Deployment Server , I don't see the need for compressing full packages in order to make my client installation marginally faster.
Using compression also does the following
- Makes Client Full build take longer
- Takes more space on the deployment server (since it is storing both the compressed and uncompressed directories)
- Requires you to periodically re-compress the parent full package so that it is up to date with the update packages that have been built since the original build.
What are your thoughts ?
Cheers
from JDELIST - JD Edwards® EnterpriseOne Technical http://ift.tt/1UpIR13
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment