RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives
first of all, i can't give definitive information only information about our experience with the two different kind of i/o subsystems. We have two identical servers cpu/os but on the test server we have SATA drives in a no raid configuration on the production server we have SCSI in raid 1+0 configuration, and the speed in database operations is far better on the SCSI system than on the SATA system... When we test with multiple users and heavy batch run on the SATA system we have experienced i/o freeze for up to 3 seconds, on the SCSI system our users can't even detect a heavy batch run... I can't imagine you will ever get SCSI performance out of a SATA drive unless you are on a single user system, the primary benefits of a SCSI subsystem lies in its ability to command tagging and sorting according to drive geometry, thus enabling multible users read/write requests to be sorted for best usage of the drive. Some of the sorting of i/o commands will be handled by the OS, but to be fair, SCSI drivers have been under heavy scrutiny for best performance for more than a decade, so SCSI drivers will probably still be somewhat ahead of SATA drivers.. best regards from Denmark Claus Derlien -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:48 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives Somewhat off topic I know, but does anyone have any definitive information re these 2 technologies? Traditionally I've always used SCSI drives, as many years ago we discovered that although the specs if EIDE looked good on paper, in practice they were sub-optimal. Whilst I could do my own tests (have just installed a Windows/SATA box), I figure others here may have already done the investigation work. FWIW I'd just be looking at a little IBM x306 with RAID level 1 via the integrated RAID SATA - nothing too punishing, only around 50 users (anything more and I'd just feel safer with SCSI), and no external cache to the drive. Once more, on paper I see transfer rates of 1.5Gbs vs 320 on U320 SCSI drives, but slower RPMs on the SATA to the 15K SCSI's, so I'm guessing (know in my gut?) that SCSI makes sense, but ... Any comments from people who have kept more abreast of hardware than I have are welcome :-) Regards, Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ** ** Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com ** ** Frie Funktionfrer - faglig organisation og tvfrfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk *** Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. *** This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you. *** --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UVSH from another machine
DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that there is no guarantee that this email or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted or amended. Brian, You gave me an idea with your suggestion. I created a small app in VB.Net using the WMI to spawn processes on a remote machine. It's a console app that takes in the server's address, username, password and the command to execute. I have tested it this morning and it works perfectly and now I can execute UVSH.EXE on the Universe server from a remote machine and it runs as it would if a local user had executed it. If this would be useful to anyone else then let me know and I will forward a zipped copy out. Thanks Andy Moore Selima Software Ltd. -Original Message- From: Brian Leach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2005 11:37 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UVSH from another machine Andy If I understand this right, you are trying to end up running a uvsh executable on one machine on a UniVerse account on another machine. Bad idea: no least because of the locking issues. You might be better off to write a small VB Script to instantiate a UniObjects connection to the remote machine and run the program 'in place'. You can execute the script by calling the CSCRIPT.EXE program in your Windows directory passing the script name. Email me offlist if you need an example of a VBScript with UniObjects. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Moore Sent: 01 August 2005 10:33 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] UVSH from another machine DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that there is no guarantee that this email or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted or amended. I am trying to use UVSH to launch a basic program in Universe, but I need to call it from another server. On the other server at the moment I have a simple batch file that is called when an event occurs. The batch file sets the D drive on the Universe server as a mapped drive called X on this server, then calls UVSH from the account's directory with the program name after it. The problem is that as the drive is mapped as X and not D (as D is already in use) UVSH doesn't call the application as it's looking for the account on X instead of D. Has anyone come across this issue before or know a way around it? The batch file is as follows: @echo off net use x: \\uvserver\d$ password /user:uvserver\administrator x: cd\PrimaryStuff\BISERVERCONTROL x:\Ardent\UV\bin\uvsh.exe absencesignal Andy Moore Selima Software Ltd Tel: 0114 2815000 Fax: 0114 281 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support: http://tracker.selima.co.uk http://tracker.selima.co.uk/ Forum: http://forum.selima.co.uk http://forum.selima.co.uk/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Real Trigger vs. Kludgy Trigger via an Index
Well, for raw speed the kludgy i-type index method is faster, however, for reliability and the ability to know when the trigger was fired (before/after, update/insert/delete) you will probably need to use the file trigger mechanism. As someone raised in an issue recently, triggers run in a transaction (which of course, doesn't allow you to run the debugger through it). However, it should be simple enough to create a test interface for your trigger program before you apply it to the file. Personally, I think there are definite advantages to running triggers within a transaction (opposed to i-type updates that IIRC won't allow it). One being that any associated updates/deletes are managed as a single update, so all updates are synchronised and/or if your trigger decides that the update can't or shouldn't be happening, then it can roll back all changes automatically via the transaction mechanism. Stuart. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 10:02 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] Real Trigger vs. Kludgy Trigger via an Index Before UV supported real file triggers, we used a kludgy way of doing it by creating an index on an i-descriptor dictionary, which then called a BASIC program to do our 'trigger stuff'. Does anyone have any input on what would now be faster? The real trigger or the 'index' trigger? I'm probably being lazy, because I know how to setup the 'index' trigger, but haven't yet ever tried the 'real' trigger. It would be worth it if I thought performance would be significantly better. Thanks. Robin Stanley Paciolan, Inc --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] Extra character
U2 Gang I am having a problem of universe (or linux) adding an extra character when I write a file out. I have tried creating a file two different ways, using WRITESEQ and WRITE to a type 19 file. Here is the code... WRITE DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON SWITCH.FILE,'nashbar.deposit.4' or OPENSEQ /usr1/BN.TEST/SWITCH-FILE/nashbar.deposit.4 TO DATA.FILE WEOFSEQ DATA.FILE END ELSE CREATE DATA.FILE ELSE CRT CAN'T CREATE END END WRITESEQ DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON DATA.FILE ELSE CRT DIDN'T WRITE Before the write, I do a CRT A LENGTH = :LEN(DEPOSIT.REQUEST) and the length is coming out at 616. When I look at it in Linux, it is showing a size of 617. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ ls -l nashbar.deposit.4 -rw-rw1 mc users 617 Aug 1 16:24 nashbar.deposit.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ wc nashbar.deposit.4 1 14 617 nashbar.deposit.4 Any ideas if the culprit is Linux or Universe adding the extra character, what the extra character could be, and/or how to stop it from writing out, if possible. When I try to edit the filename within universe, I do not see any hidden or control characters. We are running Universe 10.0.9 and Linux 7.3 Thanks in advance Marc --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Extra character
I am having a problem of universe (or linux) adding an extra character when I write a file out. I have tried creating a file two different ways, using WRITESEQ and WRITE to a type 19 file. ...snip... It's probably a trailing linefeed. If you are writing binary data rather than text you might find that WRITEBLK works better as this doesn't touch the data in any way. Martin Phillips Ladybridge Systems 17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton NN4 6DB +44-(0)1604-709200 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Extra character
Each WRITESEQ will put a linefeed character in your file if you are on a *nix system if you are on a winslow system it will be a carriage return + line feed. you will have to use WRITEBLK instead of WRITESEQ, then you will get the desired effect! best regards from Denmark claus derlien -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Caminiti, Marc Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:39 PM To: U2 Mailing List (E-mail) Subject: [U2] Extra character U2 Gang I am having a problem of universe (or linux) adding an extra character when I write a file out. I have tried creating a file two different ways, using WRITESEQ and WRITE to a type 19 file. Here is the code... WRITE DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON SWITCH.FILE,'nashbar.deposit.4' or OPENSEQ /usr1/BN.TEST/SWITCH-FILE/nashbar.deposit.4 TO DATA.FILE WEOFSEQ DATA.FILE END ELSE CREATE DATA.FILE ELSE CRT CAN'T CREATE END END WRITESEQ DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON DATA.FILE ELSE CRT DIDN'T WRITE Before the write, I do a CRT A LENGTH = :LEN(DEPOSIT.REQUEST) and the length is coming out at 616. When I look at it in Linux, it is showing a size of 617. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ ls -l nashbar.deposit.4 -rw-rw1 mc users 617 Aug 1 16:24 nashbar.deposit.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ wc nashbar.deposit.4 1 14 617 nashbar.deposit.4 Any ideas if the culprit is Linux or Universe adding the extra character, what the extra character could be, and/or how to stop it from writing out, if possible. When I try to edit the filename within universe, I do not see any hidden or control characters. We are running Universe 10.0.9 and Linux 7.3 Thanks in advance Marc --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ Frie Funktionfrer - faglig organisation og tvfrfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk *** Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. *** This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you. *** --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Extra character
Drew is probably correct (CR or LF). I send all my print jobs directly to my printers using IP address and Port - I have to get rid of the trailing CHAR(032) in the print job. Using a Linux command I can accomplish this. tr -d '\032' You can use od -c myfile.txt to take a look at what character is being appended to your file and at the end of your BASIC program use tr to strip it out. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew Henderson Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Extra character Marc, It is most likely a carriage return or newline character at the end of each line (don't recall which one it is.) HTH Drew Caminiti, Marc wrote: U2 Gang I am having a problem of universe (or linux) adding an extra character when I write a file out. I have tried creating a file two different ways, using WRITESEQ and WRITE to a type 19 file. Here is the code... WRITE DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON SWITCH.FILE,'nashbar.deposit.4' or OPENSEQ /usr1/BN.TEST/SWITCH-FILE/nashbar.deposit.4 TO DATA.FILE WEOFSEQ DATA.FILE END ELSE CREATE DATA.FILE ELSE CRT CAN'T CREATE END END WRITESEQ DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON DATA.FILE ELSE CRT DIDN'T WRITE Before the write, I do a CRT A LENGTH = :LEN(DEPOSIT.REQUEST) and the length is coming out at 616. When I look at it in Linux, it is showing a size of 617. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ ls -l nashbar.deposit.4 -rw-rw1 mc users 617 Aug 1 16:24 nashbar.deposit.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ wc nashbar.deposit.4 1 14 617 nashbar.deposit.4 Any ideas if the culprit is Linux or Universe adding the extra character, what the extra character could be, and/or how to stop it from writing out, if possible. When I try to edit the filename within universe, I do not see any hidden or control characters. We are running Universe 10.0.9 and Linux 7.3 Thanks in advance Marc --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- -- Drew Henderson There are two types of people - Dir. for Computer Center Operations those who do the work and those [EMAIL PROTECTED] who take the credit. Try to be in the first group, there is 110 Ginger Hall less competition. Morehead State University Indira Ghandi Morehead, KY 40351 Phone: 606/783-2445 Fax: 606/783-5078 -- --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Extra character
Thanks. The WRITEBLK worked perfectly. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Claus Derlien Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:28 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Extra character Each WRITESEQ will put a linefeed character in your file if you are on a *nix system if you are on a winslow system it will be a carriage return + line feed. you will have to use WRITEBLK instead of WRITESEQ, then you will get the desired effect! best regards from Denmark claus derlien -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Caminiti, Marc Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:39 PM To: U2 Mailing List (E-mail) Subject: [U2] Extra character U2 Gang I am having a problem of universe (or linux) adding an extra character when I write a file out. I have tried creating a file two different ways, using WRITESEQ and WRITE to a type 19 file. Here is the code... WRITE DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON SWITCH.FILE,'nashbar.deposit.4' or OPENSEQ /usr1/BN.TEST/SWITCH-FILE/nashbar.deposit.4 TO DATA.FILE WEOFSEQ DATA.FILE END ELSE CREATE DATA.FILE ELSE CRT CAN'T CREATE END END WRITESEQ DEPOSIT.REQUEST ON DATA.FILE ELSE CRT DIDN'T WRITE Before the write, I do a CRT A LENGTH = :LEN(DEPOSIT.REQUEST) and the length is coming out at 616. When I look at it in Linux, it is showing a size of 617. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ ls -l nashbar.deposit.4 -rw-rw1 mc users 617 Aug 1 16:24 nashbar.deposit.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SWITCH-FILE]$ wc nashbar.deposit.4 1 14 617 nashbar.deposit.4 Any ideas if the culprit is Linux or Universe adding the extra character, what the extra character could be, and/or how to stop it from writing out, if possible. When I try to edit the filename within universe, I do not see any hidden or control characters. We are running Universe 10.0.9 and Linux 7.3 Thanks in advance Marc --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ Frie Funktionfrer - faglig organisation og tvfrfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk *** Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. *** This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you. *** --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Text extraction.
Bill: [snip] D3 doesn't allow a SELECT to create a READNEXT list from an array so REMOVE is all D3 can use. [/snip] Are you saying that... SELECT DYN.ARRAY TO MYLIST LOOP READNEXT THING FROM MYLIST ELSE EXIT REPEAT ...does not work in D3? I think you are mistaken. My experience is that it works most excellently in D3, AP, and even R83- as a matter of fact, I think it probably works more consistently across all mv platforms than REMOVE. Are there any mv platforms that it doesn't work on? There is one caveat though: DYN.ARRAY must be @AM delimited (else you can CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN DYN.ARRAY first). /Scott Ballinger Pareto Corporation Edmonds WA USA 206 713 6006 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] Intercall - ic_opensession
The intercall definition ic_opensession is defined for opening a session for a connection to U2 .. there is also a ic_unidata_session and a ic_universe_session. The only difference I can see between the 3 is that ic_unidata_session has a 7th parameter 'Unidata_Server'. Otherwise they all appear to work the same. As we are moving a process from Universe to Unidata i wanted to check that I am not missing anything *important*. The process appears to work correctly but .. Thanks -- DSig David Tod Sigafoos When I'm good I'm very good, but when I'm bad I'm better. Mae West --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives
No, SATA is closer to IDE than SCSI. Google for scsi versus sata, or scsi vs sata http://www.infotech.com/ITA/Issues/20050426/Articles/Cut%20Through%20the%20SAS%20vs,-d-,%20SATA%20Debate.aspx Might be enlightening. SCSI is still more reliable (greater MTBF), but more expensive (often, much more expensive). John On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Allen E. Elwood wrote: I switched to SATA not long ago. Incredible performance Here's the funny part: you have to set your ROM to boot from SCSI! Didn't say that anywhere in the doc's but there was no boot option for SATA on my ASUS P5P800 so on a whim, and in desperation, I tried booting from SCSI and BINGO! So as far as I can tell, SATA is the latest version of SCSI??? Here's an article that I pack ratted away from PC Magazine: *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* The new Serial ATA technology is poised to improve the performance and reliability of your system. Virtually every PC today relies on the venerable ATA (Advanced Technology Attachment) interface to connect hard drives, CD drives, and other types of drives. Spurred by the relentless demands for faster drive performance and greater reliability, the ATA standard (also known as IDE), which has a rated connection speed of 3.3 MBps, has undergone many advances. The Ultra ATA (dubbed Ultra ATA/133) interface can pass 16 bits of parallel data between a drive and PC at speeds of up to 133 MBps. Such parallel-signal schemes, however, are reaching the practical limits of current cable, drive, and controller electronics. To achieve even faster data transfer rates, drive manufacturers are turning to a serial scheme called Serial ATA (SATA). Though it may seem counterintuitive that a serial technology (which transfers data one bit at a time rather than transferring multiple data bits simultaneously, as a parallel scheme does) could outpace a parallel one, that's exactly what SATA does; it transfers data at a much faster rate and more efficiently. Now that SATA drives, add-in controller cards, and most importantly, PC chipsets are finally available, you'll want to understand the benefits of this technology. SATA typically handles data transfers of up to 150 MBps and in the future can be scaled up to 300 MBps and beyond. Some manufacturers predict speeds as high as 600 MBps. SATA offers a speedier boot process and faster loading of programs and data. But perhaps the best part of the new technology is SATA's simpler cabling. If you've ever looked inside a PC, you've seen the wide, gray, 40-pin ribbon cable that daisy-chains master/slave drives to the ATA controller port. Not only were those 40 wires laying close together a potential source of interference, but routing the bulky cable made the placement of drives difficult. Moreover, the traditional cables are notorious for disturbing air flow within PCs. SATA uses thin cables that route easily and don't block a PC's cooling system, thus preventing hot spots and improving overall system reliability. Connecting SATA drives is easier, too. Each drive connects to the host PC via an individual cable; the host PC treats all drives as master devices, eliminating the jumper settings, which have frustrated users for years. This greatly eases installation and configuration. Finally, the cables can be longer. Current parallel ATA cables max out at 18 inches, while SATA cables can be as long as 39.4 inches (1 meter). That's good for high-end boxes that use full-tower cases. You will also find adding or replacing drives easier with SATA. You won't have to power down your PC before connecting a new drive, because SATA allows for hot-pluggable connections, so you can add or remove SATA drives while your PC is running. The connectors are also keyed (that is, designed for one-way insertion), so you don't need to worry about accidentally reversing a connection. SATA is software-compatible with ATA, so you don't need any special drivers or OS upgrades to support the new drives; the SATA controller does the conversion between the drive and host PC. Consequently, SATA drives can coexist on the same system with parallel ATA devices. Yet because of the differences between SATA and parallel ATA, you can't simply drop a SATA drive into a parallel ATA system. Here's what it takes to implement Serial ATA on your PC. To start, you'll need a new SATA drive such as the 120GB Seagate Barracuda ATA V (www.seagate.com). The only difference you'll see in the SATA drive is the connector scheme (and the absence of drive jumpers). The host PC requires a SATA controller with one or more SATA ports, such as the Promise Technology SATA150 TX2plus, which combines two independent SATA ports and one Ultra ATA port and supports up to two serial and two Ultra ATA drives (www.promise.com). In new SATA-compatible machines, the motherboard uses a controller chip that supports SATA. The Marvell 88i8030 Serial ATA Bridge Chip
Re: [U2] Intercall - ic_opensession
The intercall definition ic_opensession is defined for opening a session for a connection to U2 .. there is also a ic_unidata_session and a ic_universe_session. The only difference I can see between the 3 is that ic_unidata_session has a 7th parameter 'Unidata_Server'. Otherwise they all appear to work the same. As we are moving a process from Universe to Unidata i wanted to check that I am not missing anything *important*. The process appears to work correctly but .. I've been using this on Unidata for 3+ years without a hitch: session_id=ic_opensession(server,username,password,account,code,NULL); Jeff Butera, Ph.D. Administrative Systems Hampshire College [EMAIL PROTECTED] 413-559-5556 ...our behavior matters more than the beliefs that we profess. Elizabeth Deutsch Earle --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Open Excel and Import a file or execute a command from a localPC
Another good way to do this is to use the xls file extension for your csv file. Use the Windows start command to launch the file. Excel will recognize it as CSV and load it. You don't need the path to Excel. You can even embed formulas into the csv file, for example: =sum(a2:a30) To open the spreadsheet (really a CSV or Tab-Delimited file, etc): PRINT ESC:STX:'start /D ' : f:\ f:\ralph.xls:CR The start command works differently in Windows 9x (start /m f:\ralph.xls). Also, you can launch URL's into the default web browser this way, or just about anything as long as there is a valid file association for the given file extension. Craig McDonald Gensco -Original Message- From: Craig McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:58 AM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] Open Excel and Import a file or execute a command from a localPC Another good way to do this is to use the xls file extension for your csv file. Use the Windows start command to launch the file. Excel will recognize it as CSV and load it. You don't need the path to Excel. You can even embed formulas into the csv file, for example: =sum(a2:a30) To open the spreadsheet (really a CSV or Tab-Delimited file, etc): PRINT ESC:STX:'start /D ' : f:\ f:\ralph.xls:CR The start command works differently in Windows 9x (start /m f:\ralph.xls). Also, you can launch URL's into the default web browser this way, or just about anything as long as there is a valid file association for the given file extension. Craig McDonald Gensco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:46 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Open Excel and Import a file or execute a command from a localPC Ralph Burton u2programmer-at-yahoo.com |U2UG| wrote: Here's what I attempting in Accuterm 2000. The notebook line works, but the excel line flashes something fast and returns me to Accuterm. Weird huh? I went to my PC and used RUN command Excel f:\ralph.csv and that worked... here's the code: STX=CHAR(2); ESC=CHAR(27); CR=CHAR(13) PRINT ESC:STX:Excel f:\ralph.csv:CR PRINT ESC:STX:notepad f:\ralph.csv:CR END Notepad might be in your execution PATH but Excel probably isn't. If that's the case I'm surprised it runs from Run/cmd. Try replacing your Excel line with this: PRINT ESC:STX:Excel f:\ralph.csv f:\ralph.txt:CR Then check ralph.txt for an error message which may be this: 'excel' is not recognized as an internal or external command... So try this: MYPATH=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11 Or whatever the real path is to your Excel.exe. Then: PRINT ESC:STX:'':MYPATH:'Excel f:\ralph.csv':CR Add the ralph.txt part back in if that doesn't work. And for grins, check this out (remove the REMOOVE to use the URLs: http://nebula-rndREMOOVE.com/products/analysis.htm That product is no longer offered but components will be used in future offerings. Here is an audio/video presentation showing it in action. http://nebula-rndREMOOVE.com/demos/nebulanalysis/ Again, I'm not selling this code anymore but it shows what's possible outside of AccuTerm and CSV... HTH Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ removethisNebula-RnD .com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives
This totally depends on the chipset manufacturer. A $50 Adaptec SATA card isn't going to burn a hole in the case. Our Opteron file-server box is running a 320GB Barracuda RAID 5 on a 64-bit 3ware controller. It smokes every Adaptec SCSI RAID I have on site with ~500MB/sec read throughput and near 300MB/sec write over FTP on a 100MB full-duplex switch. For the best money/speed, SATA RAID is the way to go. For the overall best in speed, consider a multi-channel high-end SCSI system. Fiber is definitely the cleanest, but it's not cheap. A few thousand in drive hardware costing and you'll probably end up reviewing and comparing SATA again. :P But hey, if you've got the money, go full-blown 64-bit multi-channel SCSI. Keep in mind that when a 200GB drive dies on a SATA array, you're only out $150-200. Compare that with lower capacity 15K RPM SCSI drives running $400-$600. Glen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Claus Derlien Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:54 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives first of all, i can't give definitive information only information about our experience with the two different kind of i/o subsystems. We have two identical servers cpu/os but on the test server we have SATA drives in a no raid configuration on the production server we have SCSI in raid 1+0 configuration, and the speed in database operations is far better on the SCSI system than on the SATA system... When we test with multiple users and heavy batch run on the SATA system we have experienced i/o freeze for up to 3 seconds, on the SCSI system our users can't even detect a heavy batch run... I can't imagine you will ever get SCSI performance out of a SATA drive unless you are on a single user system, the primary benefits of a SCSI subsystem lies in its ability to command tagging and sorting according to drive geometry, thus enabling multible users read/write requests to be sorted for best usage of the drive. Some of the sorting of i/o commands will be handled by the OS, but to be fair, SCSI drivers have been under heavy scrutiny for best performance for more than a decade, so SCSI drivers will probably still be somewhat ahead of SATA drivers.. best regards from Denmark Claus Derlien -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:48 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives Somewhat off topic I know, but does anyone have any definitive information re these 2 technologies? Traditionally I've always used SCSI drives, as many years ago we discovered that although the specs if EIDE looked good on paper, in practice they were sub-optimal. Whilst I could do my own tests (have just installed a Windows/SATA box), I figure others here may have already done the investigation work. FWIW I'd just be looking at a little IBM x306 with RAID level 1 via the integrated RAID SATA - nothing too punishing, only around 50 users (anything more and I'd just feel safer with SCSI), and no external cache to the drive. Once more, on paper I see transfer rates of 1.5Gbs vs 320 on U320 SCSI drives, but slower RPMs on the SATA to the 15K SCSI's, so I'm guessing (know in my gut?) that SCSI makes sense, but ... Any comments from people who have kept more abreast of hardware than I have are welcome :-) Regards, Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ** ** Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com ** ** Frie Funktionfrer - faglig organisation og tvfrfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk ** * Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. ** * This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you.
[U2] Anyone here using Cold Fusion to access UniVerse?
Kind of an open ended question here, I have a few issues I'm curious about particularly in regards to jdbc issues, but presumably there aren't many CF users here so I'd rather not clog up the list. If anyone has any general experience with the two, and willing to answer a couple of vague questions I'd apprecaite it. One of the vague questions, incidentally, is whther you find you need to have your cfquery against the UV datasource all on a single line, or if you're able to format it more meaningfully. Many thanks. -- Peter Ivanick Sr. Programmer/Analyst School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 215.573.2306Fax: 215.573.8777 http://www.vet.upenn.edu/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives
I was going to stay out of this one... But MTBF is drive dependent. WD Raptors (a 10,000 RPM, 4.5ms seek time enterprise drive not really meant for the desktop but often used there) is rated at 1.2M hours, pretty much in line with all of the SCSI drives. Seagate Cheetahs, the self proclaimed highest reliability in the industry SCSI drive, is rated at 1.4M hours. A good source for really comparing drives is http://www.storagereview.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Godzina Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:59 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives No, SATA is closer to IDE than SCSI. Google for scsi versus sata, or scsi vs sata http://www.infotech.com/ITA/Issues/20050426/Articles/Cut%20Through%20the %20SAS%20vs,-d-,%20SATA%20Debate.aspx Might be enlightening. SCSI is still more reliable (greater MTBF), but more expensive (often, much more expensive). John --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Text extraction.
Scott: You're correct, of course...I don't know what I was thinking. An example is even in the D3 help. The only caveat is the 1st value of each attribute is selected. Thanks for the correction. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Ballinger Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Text extraction. Bill: [snip] D3 doesn't allow a SELECT to create a READNEXT list from an array so REMOVE is all D3 can use. [/snip] Are you saying that... SELECT DYN.ARRAY TO MYLIST LOOP READNEXT THING FROM MYLIST ELSE EXIT REPEAT ...does not work in D3? I think you are mistaken. My experience is that it works most excellently in D3, AP, and even R83- as a matter of fact, I think it probably works more consistently across all mv platforms than REMOVE. Are there any mv platforms that it doesn't work on? There is one caveat though: DYN.ARRAY must be @AM delimited (else you can CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN DYN.ARRAY first). /Scott Ballinger Pareto Corporation Edmonds WA USA 206 713 6006 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives
I got my SATA drives on a sale at Fry's (www.outpost.com) after rebate they were only $60 each for 160GB Western Digital drives. I had to have my neighbor go with me, because there was a limit of one, but he didn't mind. :) So *really* cheap and very fast. A great combination, imho, especially since I'm independent and the only user of the system. Not even close to your throughput, but fast enough so that unidata selects on a file with almost a million records is just whoosh and it's done. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Glen B Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:55 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives This totally depends on the chipset manufacturer. A $50 Adaptec SATA card isn't going to burn a hole in the case. Our Opteron file-server box is running a 320GB Barracuda RAID 5 on a 64-bit 3ware controller. It smokes every Adaptec SCSI RAID I have on site with ~500MB/sec read throughput and near 300MB/sec write over FTP on a 100MB full-duplex switch. For the best money/speed, SATA RAID is the way to go. For the overall best in speed, consider a multi-channel high-end SCSI system. Fiber is definitely the cleanest, but it's not cheap. A few thousand in drive hardware costing and you'll probably end up reviewing and comparing SATA again. :P But hey, if you've got the money, go full-blown 64-bit multi-channel SCSI. Keep in mind that when a 200GB drive dies on a SATA array, you're only out $150-200. Compare that with lower capacity 15K RPM SCSI drives running $400-$600. Glen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Claus Derlien Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:54 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives first of all, i can't give definitive information only information about our experience with the two different kind of i/o subsystems. We have two identical servers cpu/os but on the test server we have SATA drives in a no raid configuration on the production server we have SCSI in raid 1+0 configuration, and the speed in database operations is far better on the SCSI system than on the SATA system... When we test with multiple users and heavy batch run on the SATA system we have experienced i/o freeze for up to 3 seconds, on the SCSI system our users can't even detect a heavy batch run... I can't imagine you will ever get SCSI performance out of a SATA drive unless you are on a single user system, the primary benefits of a SCSI subsystem lies in its ability to command tagging and sorting according to drive geometry, thus enabling multible users read/write requests to be sorted for best usage of the drive. Some of the sorting of i/o commands will be handled by the OS, but to be fair, SCSI drivers have been under heavy scrutiny for best performance for more than a decade, so SCSI drivers will probably still be somewhat ahead of SATA drivers.. best regards from Denmark Claus Derlien -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:48 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives Somewhat off topic I know, but does anyone have any definitive information re these 2 technologies? Traditionally I've always used SCSI drives, as many years ago we discovered that although the specs if EIDE looked good on paper, in practice they were sub-optimal. Whilst I could do my own tests (have just installed a Windows/SATA box), I figure others here may have already done the investigation work. FWIW I'd just be looking at a little IBM x306 with RAID level 1 via the integrated RAID SATA - nothing too punishing, only around 50 users (anything more and I'd just feel safer with SCSI), and no external cache to the drive. Once more, on paper I see transfer rates of 1.5Gbs vs 320 on U320 SCSI drives, but slower RPMs on the SATA to the 15K SCSI's, so I'm guessing (know in my gut?) that SCSI makes sense, but ... Any comments from people who have kept more abreast of hardware than I have are welcome :-) Regards, Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ** ** Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com ** ** Frie Funktionfrer - faglig organisation og tvfrfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk ** * Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet
[U2] command.editor
We recently upgraded to UV10 and discovered that COMMAND.EDITOR has been included. We used this long ago on Prime Information but now we cannot locate manuals for some of its subcommands. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Anyone here using Cold Fusion to access UniVerse?
I'm not sure about your architecture, but just to open some possibilities... I used CF years ago connect into a back end application using CFHTTP queries rather than ODBC. If you're already exposing U2 business rules as a Web Service then using CF to generate the UI becomes a no brainer. If not, well, that's one of the benefits of modularization and exposing code as UI-independent rules, which is after all what Stored Procedures are all about. HTH T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re[2]: [U2] Intercall - ic_opensession
jbutera, yes, we have been using that for years in universe. My question was more about the Unidata extension and what it brings? thanks Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 11:30:26 AM, you wrote: The intercall definition ic_opensession is defined for opening a session for a connection to U2 .. there is also a ic_unidata_session and a ic_universe_session. The only difference I can see between the 3 is that ic_unidata_session has a 7th parameter 'Unidata_Server'. Otherwise they all appear to work the same. As we are moving a process from Universe to Unidata i wanted to check that I am not missing anything *important*. The process appears to work correctly but .. jhe I've been using this on Unidata for 3+ years without a hitch: jhe session_id=ic_opensession(server,username,password,account,code,NULL); -- DSig ` David Tod Sigafoos ( O O ) ___oOOo__( )__oOOo___ Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re[2]: [U2] Intercall - ic_opensession
yes, we have been using that for years in universe. My question was more about the Unidata extension and what it brings? Sorry - I haven't ued the other alternative, so I can't comment on the difference. Jeff Butera, Ph.D. Administrative Systems Hampshire College [EMAIL PROTECTED] 413-559-5556 ...our behavior matters more than the beliefs that we profess. Elizabeth Deutsch Earle --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] command.editor
I'm pretty sure COMMAND.EDITOR is unsupported and undocumented with this release. It also doesn't work as expected. You'd be better off rolling-your-own. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Hutchings Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 5:06 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] command.editor We recently upgraded to UV10 and discovered that COMMAND.EDITOR has been included. We used this long ago on Prime Information but now we cannot locate manuals for some of its subcommands. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of this company unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This company accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to this e-mail. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
