Hi,   I know a little SAS DI at a high level (not ignorance I promise, just that my role doesn't to date hasn't required me to know more, until now!) - so please bear with me if this is a daft problem / question...   This is on AWS EC2 Cloud Infrastructure with a SAS 9.4 DI Installation on Linux.   We are attempting to build bespoke CI/CD pipelines utilising GitLabCI (Git runner too, with some bespoke python and Git CLI commands) and are endeavouring to store SAS artifacts at a more granular 'binary' level. So rather than exporting everything or multiple jobs/flows etc.to a single .spk file, from one environment to the next (or from GitLab to the next), we're attempting to create single .spk files for each lower-level artifact e.g. Table/Job/Flow..   Functionally, the solution works well - the issue being that for every item listed in a controlling 'Manifest' file - a Yaml file that orchestrates the order / config etc - there is a separate 'connect, export then disconnect' issued for every export from DI - ignoring GitLab for the moment and the ability to retrieve from there, this is for the initial deployment build, where the code will need to be exported from the dev/source env, to make its way to GitLab, before it can go anywhere else.   This works fine for 50 - 100 objects/artifacts, but some of our core component builds are likely to be 1500-2000+ distinct items - so performance is proving an issue when we're testing a full system build, roughly 20-30 seconds is lost for each item, with a connect, disconnect then for next item connect again (and so on and so forth).   To summarise, this is executing the DI export package from the command line - my question is, is there any way to maintain the connection to export multiple packages, without having to disconnect and then reconnect for the next one in the queue (Driving manifest file)?    I suppose the real question, irrespective as to how the call/execution is made - is there a way to force connectivity to remain between export executions?   Again, apologies if terminology is incorrect or I am articulating incorrectly, any help / guidance is much appreciated.   Many Thanks, Dave ... View more