RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD}
Hi Baker, In response to: make an almost convincing argument to do it on the dedicated target If the target is another shared system, then it is often not a good candidate for this type of thing. I guess what I've often seen is a dedicated processor on a workstation that was used to transfer data. If this system uses multithreading so you don't get a store-and-forward end-to-end delay then it becomes an excellent candidate for doing the transformation. In response to: I honestly raised an eyebrow at your thought that non-MV DB could transform MV data better/faster. I wouldn't say another DB. [AD]I've written extensive Java, C++ and C# (even assembler in my day) code to process MultiValue data, and if you can avoid the overhead of an immutable string problem it is possible to get really great performance. There are some interesting gotchas, but I've had to figure them out a long time ago, and I have a robust, mature library of code that I use for this.[/AD] Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:04 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD} Thank you Robert and Janet. Overly kind of you Robert to take the time to distill some insights into this reply. You give more consideration to the overhead of data Transformation and make an almost convincing argument to do it on the dedicated target, assumedly something relational/non-MV. The anecdote you give is an interesting one about the benchmark attempt, which sounded half-baked by the MV programmers. I'd still be interested to see a real comparative benchmark with thorough transformation done on the MV side before jettison. [Ad] I've written and extensive ETL myself that was used to normalize/extract MV data from 27 UniData systems [due to their untimely merger-induced demise]. I even used WRITESEQ's instead of WRITEBLK and it was still extremely fast. [/Ad] Most of us have a long history of transformation if we've been doing EDI - flattening our dimensioned data into the ANSI standards. I honestly raised an eyebrow at your thought that non-MV DB could transform MV data better/faster. But you've done a good bit of it and apparently written some things to accomplish it, and I revere your experience at this. hmmm ... maybe the transformation issue (and others you've outlined to a lesser extent) is why it's such a long leap for MV-based BI tools to mash disparate data stores. Sincere regards, -Baker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet Bond Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:35 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD} As promised here is Robert Houben's input to your question Baker!!! :) For anyone who doesn't know me, I was the lead designer and developer of the PK Harmony product which we demoed at PC Labs at the Spectrum show in 1986 (over 20 years ago!) I've been involved in data communications since the early 1980's and I'm still intimately involved in it, so I think that I have some expertise in the matter! ;) I put the ad marker in so the moderators won't flip. I don't believe that anyone markets PK Harmony anymore (that was another company) so I shouldn't need it for that, but just in case... Also, I may accidentally reference some products that I worked on that my present company markets, so we'll have to comply! ;) What I say here can be applied to any product currently on the market. There are several factors that affect throughput and performance when transferring data between systems (any systems). I'll detail these and then go through them, with some special emphasis for how they are impacted by MultiValue processing. I use SQL Server as the example target. In some cases your target is different, but most of what I say is either still relevant or at the very least, worth thinking about: - I/O bandwidth and contention - CPU speed and contention - Disk bandwidth and contention - Synchronization - End to end latency - Transformation I/O Bandwidth and Contention: = The first thing to look at is I/O bandwidth and contention. There are products that you can get that will allow you to set up two endpoints and push data through, and measure the throughput. If you have a 10MBit LAN, you will never exceed 10 MBits. If you have a busy network, and your two endpoints need to go through multiple routers, you will undoubtedly have less than 10 MBits (or 100MBits) to work with. There is a hard limit, determined by your network environment, to how much data you can push through. Although this is not usually the most limiting factor, I've been amazed when people who had smoking throughput pushing data between two applications on the same machine, are surprised when they lose
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non-MV dbms (AD)
Hello Baker, We have a customer who is processing tens of thousands of transactions a day. These transactions are centralized on SQL Server so that the Oracle ESB, UniVerse and Web Systems can share the data. The key LOB Application is on Universe, so it drives the live process. Every weekend they transfer millions of records in a large batch to ensure that everything is synchronized. The data flows both ways to SQL and Oracle. This is a Worldwide 24x7 company that is experiencing massive monthly growth, the transactions generate a serious amount of revenue. The environment needs to be fast, stable and scalable. The technology (Legacy to SQL Bridge) can access remote databases from Universe. The tables are viewed as if they are Universe files, records as items and fields as attributes. This lets Universe read, write and select data from the remote databases as if they were Universe files. On our demonstration environment here are the numbers. Using the Legacy to SQL Bridge to transfer data from SQL Server into PICK took about 1.2 seconds for 10,000 rows. Thatbs over 8,000 rows per second. Going the other ways, we were able to get, in the end, about 250 rows per second, as I recall. A better SQL Server configuration would probably have helped. These are actually very modest numbers, when you consider the configuration that was running: b Everything was running on a Lenovo Laptop: o Intel Centrino Duo o 2 GB RAM o 100 GB Disk (very full, fragmentation moderate) b Windows XP Professional b SQL Server 2005 b Microsoft Virtual PC 2004, running: o Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3: o' Universe 12 might have been 11? o' FusionWare Integration Server with the Legacy to SQL Bridge Everything was vying for CPU and I/O on one system, and we had the overhead of Microsoftbs Virtual environment (not known to be best of breed at this point). So, in an ideal tuned environment, the numbers could be much better. Then again, in a real-world environment where both your MultiValue and your SQL systems are shared, overloaded, hardworking systems, these numbers may still be about right. Hope that is useful. Janet /AD -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:54 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non-MV dbms Baker, Given the scenario you have just outlined, and my imaginings of the way that each of the 3 systems SHOULD work, you have no likelihood of deadlock collisions (this could be guaranteed with possibly relatively minor tweaks to all sides of the equation). If you want a solution, I just need a few more FACTS (guestimates AOK for numbers) - what is the database behind the WCS system - does the WCS have automated/robotic picking, manual/RF or a combination - average number of line items on a transaction originating from the Universe system - average line items for an order from the web portal - assume you want LIVE inventory on the portal (may be reasons why this is BAD, but that is another story) - peak transactions/hr from OLTP web portal Baker, I know you mean well, but I'm just questioning the need for Fastest in this scenario, unless I see some seriously LARGE numbers for some of the above :-) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! [ad] BTW, we also do applications, covering areas like web ordering, warehousing, distribution etc just for the record, and have had to tackle issues like this before [/ad] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2007 12:20 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non- MV dbms Ross, Yes, there is a real-world application to the question, at least one where I may try to 'sell' the solution after the theory is worked out. 3 Different systems play with the same live Inventory of products: a UniVerse based OLTP, a MS SQL db based web-order portal, and a Warehouse Control System which fills the orders and receives stock. At night we batch the daily stock receipts from WCS up to UniVerse, update the Avail to Sell qty for the OLTP and allocate Order Reserve Qty to backorders. Then UV sends the updated ATS to the web database (which is always 24 hours behind). Ross has asked the most astute question in all this, that of data collisions, where the same product is updated on 2 or 3 sides at once. This is perhaps the question that looms largest and keeps people (like us) in batch mode rather than real-time. Thanks everyone for the very worthy contributions to this science. -Baker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:58 AM To:
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non-MV dbms (AD)
Robert, Janet, Thanks for these mind expanding contributions to the discussion. I rejoice with you at these successes, as we do for all our MV colleagues. I trust I and others will benefit from your insights as we get the opportunity, with similarly challenging projects, hopefully in the not too distant future. And it wouldn't be a bad thing if someone gave your product a hard look when they are faced with that project... ;-) -Baker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet Bond Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non-MV dbms (AD) Hello Baker, We have a customer who is processing tens of thousands of transactions a day. These transactions are centralized on SQL Server so that the Oracle ESB, UniVerse and Web Systems can share the data. The key LOB Application is on Universe, so it drives the live process. Every weekend they transfer millions of records in a large batch to ensure that everything is synchronized. The data flows both ways to SQL and Oracle. This is a Worldwide 24x7 company that is experiencing massive monthly growth, the transactions generate a serious amount of revenue. The environment needs to be fast, stable and scalable. The technology (Legacy to SQL Bridge) can access remote databases from Universe. The tables are viewed as if they are Universe files, records as items and fields as attributes. This lets Universe read, write and select data from the remote databases as if they were Universe files. On our demonstration environment here are the numbers. Using the Legacy to SQL Bridge to transfer data from SQL Server into PICK took about 1.2 seconds for 10,000 rows. Thatbs over 8,000 rows per second. Going the other ways, we were able to get, in the end, about 250 rows per second, as I recall. A better SQL Server configuration would probably have helped. These are actually very modest numbers, when you consider the configuration that was running: b Everything was running on a Lenovo Laptop: o Intel Centrino Duo o 2 GB RAM o 100 GB Disk (very full, fragmentation moderate) b Windows XP Professional b SQL Server 2005 b Microsoft Virtual PC 2004, running: o Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3: o' Universe 12 might have been 11? o' FusionWare Integration Server with the Legacy to SQL Bridge Everything was vying for CPU and I/O on one system, and we had the overhead of Microsoftbs Virtual environment (not known to be best of breed at this point). So, in an ideal tuned environment, the numbers could be much better. Then again, in a real-world environment where both your MultiValue and your SQL systems are shared, overloaded, hardworking systems, these numbers may still be about right. Hope that is useful. Janet /AD -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:54 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non-MV dbms Baker, Given the scenario you have just outlined, and my imaginings of the way that each of the 3 systems SHOULD work, you have no likelihood of deadlock collisions (this could be guaranteed with possibly relatively minor tweaks to all sides of the equation). If you want a solution, I just need a few more FACTS (guestimates AOK for numbers) - what is the database behind the WCS system - does the WCS have automated/robotic picking, manual/RF or a combination - average number of line items on a transaction originating from the Universe system - average line items for an order from the web portal - assume you want LIVE inventory on the portal (may be reasons why this is BAD, but that is another story) - peak transactions/hr from OLTP web portal Baker, I know you mean well, but I'm just questioning the need for Fastest in this scenario, unless I see some seriously LARGE numbers for some of the above :-) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! [ad] BTW, we also do applications, covering areas like web ordering, warehousing, distribution etc just for the record, and have had to tackle issues like this before [/ad] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2007 12:20 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non- MV dbms Ross, Yes, there is a real-world application to the question, at least one where I may try to 'sell' the solution after the theory is worked out. 3 Different systems play with the same live Inventory of products: a UniVerse based OLTP, a MS SQL db based web-order portal, and a Warehouse Control System which fills the orders and receives stock. At night we batch the daily stock receipts from WCS up
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD}
As promised here is Robert Houben's input to your question Baker!!! :) For anyone who doesn't know me, I was the lead designer and developer of the PK Harmony product which we demoed at PC Labs at the Spectrum show in 1986 (over 20 years ago!) I've been involved in data communications since the early 1980's and I'm still intimately involved in it, so I think that I have some expertise in the matter! ;) I put the ad marker in so the moderators won't flip. I don't believe that anyone markets PK Harmony anymore (that was another company) so I shouldn't need it for that, but just in case... Also, I may accidentally reference some products that I worked on that my present company markets, so we'll have to comply! ;) What I say here can be applied to any product currently on the market. There are several factors that affect throughput and performance when transferring data between systems (any systems). I'll detail these and then go through them, with some special emphasis for how they are impacted by MultiValue processing. I use SQL Server as the example target. In some cases your target is different, but most of what I say is either still relevant or at the very least, worth thinking about: - I/O bandwidth and contention - CPU speed and contention - Disk bandwidth and contention - Synchronization - End to end latency - Transformation I/O Bandwidth and Contention: = The first thing to look at is I/O bandwidth and contention. There are products that you can get that will allow you to set up two endpoints and push data through, and measure the throughput. If you have a 10MBit LAN, you will never exceed 10 MBits. If you have a busy network, and your two endpoints need to go through multiple routers, you will undoubtedly have less than 10 MBits (or 100MBits) to work with. There is a hard limit, determined by your network environment, to how much data you can push through. Although this is not usually the most limiting factor, I've been amazed when people who had smoking throughput pushing data between two applications on the same machine, are surprised when they lose a ton of performance when they move one of these application to another system and they suddenly run into a bottleneck on the network. CPU Speed and Contention: = The other thing to consider is CPU speed and contention. On a typical MultiValue system, you will find yourself disk constrained, but if you are doing a lot of transformation (we'll look at that later) then you may find that this is a limiting factor. The other thing to consider is that whenever you can push processing from a shared CPU resource (your MultiValue system) to a dedicated resource (the client's desktop), you can significantly increase performance. Disk Bandwidth and Contention: == Next up is Disk bandwidth and contention. This can be a hugely significant factor. If you look at most OLTP type, MultiValue applications, you will see that the CPU sits mostly idle (seems over the years to average about 10%). Not all of this is file access, BTW, in many cases what you are encountering is context switches and internal program space being managed in virtual memory. Again, as with CPU, moving as much of that from the shared resource to the dedicated resource as you can will ALWAYS be a good thing for performance. Synchronization: Next is synchronization. Actually, most MultiValue databases are MUCH better at this than SQL Server! :) Still, whenever you run the risk of contention over locks, you can encounter significant performance problems. In most cases when doing this type of thing, on the MultiValue side, you will be reading or writing without any locks. You may need to think about what happens if another user is on the system and tries to write to the same record you are writing to. When this happens you have no reasonable choice but to take the hit. On SQL Server, you want to choose the cursor model that best suits what you are doing, and possibly force an exclusive table lock, or just do it when no one is on the system. On an almost related note, you may wish to size your SQL Database *before* you start the push. SQL Server will automatically resize the database, but this is expensive. You are better off to size it first, then do the push. End to End Latency: === End to end latency is another issue. Multi-threaded systems allow you to be retrieving and transforming data while you are also working with the previous row. This type of processing does not tend to happen on the MultiValue system. You really need to use the dedicated resource to do this for you. Transformation: === Finally, we come to Transformation. This is the kicker. [AD]I had a prospect who was looking at our Direct product, who also had some people who wrote a program. This program took their
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD}
Thank you Robert and Janet. Overly kind of you Robert to take the time to distill some insights into this reply. You give more consideration to the overhead of data Transformation and make an almost convincing argument to do it on the dedicated target, assumedly something relational/non-MV. The anecdote you give is an interesting one about the benchmark attempt, which sounded half-baked by the MV programmers. I'd still be interested to see a real comparative benchmark with thorough transformation done on the MV side before jettison. [Ad] I've written and extensive ETL myself that was used to normalize/extract MV data from 27 UniData systems [due to their untimely merger-induced demise]. I even used WRITESEQ's instead of WRITEBLK and it was still extremely fast. [/Ad] Most of us have a long history of transformation if we've been doing EDI - flattening our dimensioned data into the ANSI standards. I honestly raised an eyebrow at your thought that non-MV DB could transform MV data better/faster. But you've done a good bit of it and apparently written some things to accomplish it, and I revere your experience at this. hmmm ... maybe the transformation issue (and others you've outlined to a lesser extent) is why it's such a long leap for MV-based BI tools to mash disparate data stores. Sincere regards, -Baker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet Bond Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:35 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD} As promised here is Robert Houben's input to your question Baker!!! :) For anyone who doesn't know me, I was the lead designer and developer of the PK Harmony product which we demoed at PC Labs at the Spectrum show in 1986 (over 20 years ago!) I've been involved in data communications since the early 1980's and I'm still intimately involved in it, so I think that I have some expertise in the matter! ;) I put the ad marker in so the moderators won't flip. I don't believe that anyone markets PK Harmony anymore (that was another company) so I shouldn't need it for that, but just in case... Also, I may accidentally reference some products that I worked on that my present company markets, so we'll have to comply! ;) What I say here can be applied to any product currently on the market. There are several factors that affect throughput and performance when transferring data between systems (any systems). I'll detail these and then go through them, with some special emphasis for how they are impacted by MultiValue processing. I use SQL Server as the example target. In some cases your target is different, but most of what I say is either still relevant or at the very least, worth thinking about: - I/O bandwidth and contention - CPU speed and contention - Disk bandwidth and contention - Synchronization - End to end latency - Transformation I/O Bandwidth and Contention: = The first thing to look at is I/O bandwidth and contention. There are products that you can get that will allow you to set up two endpoints and push data through, and measure the throughput. If you have a 10MBit LAN, you will never exceed 10 MBits. If you have a busy network, and your two endpoints need to go through multiple routers, you will undoubtedly have less than 10 MBits (or 100MBits) to work with. There is a hard limit, determined by your network environment, to how much data you can push through. Although this is not usually the most limiting factor, I've been amazed when people who had smoking throughput pushing data between two applications on the same machine, are surprised when they lose a ton of performance when they move one of these application to another system and they suddenly run into a bottleneck on the network. CPU Speed and Contention: = The other thing to consider is CPU speed and contention. On a typical MultiValue system, you will find yourself disk constrained, but if you are doing a lot of transformation (we'll look at that later) then you may find that this is a limiting factor. The other thing to consider is that whenever you can push processing from a shared CPU resource (your MultiValue system) to a dedicated resource (the client's desktop), you can significantly increase performance. Disk Bandwidth and Contention: == Next up is Disk bandwidth and contention. This can be a hugely significant factor. If you look at most OLTP type, MultiValue applications, you will see that the CPU sits mostly idle (seems over the years to average about 10%). Not all of this is file access, BTW, in many cases what you are encountering is context switches and internal program space being managed in virtual memory. Again, as with CPU, moving as much of that from the shared resource to the dedicated resource as you can will ALWAYS be a good thing for performance
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD]
Hello Baker, Please email me. I can setup a conference call with one of Developers. We have been in the transferring MultiValue data to other data sources since the early 80's (PK Harmony to start with, anyone remember). We may have some good input for you. Thanks, Janet Bond FusionWare Corporation Sales Operation Manager 1.866.266.2326 x159 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:58 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms Hey, What is the fastest and lowest cpu overhead method of transferring data between U2/MV databases, and other data sources? Assumed: a) no restrictions on underlying OS - whichever best facilitates your proposed method. b) no restrictions on Database of choice - I know this is a U2 list and we all have commitments to it, but if someone else (QM, Cache, D3...) is doing something that we ought to be doing in U2, name the db and feat they are accomplishing. C) Production system - the system must also support your OLTP users, not dedicated to data serving The primary concern is throughput, screaming fast throughput. Dogs that won't hunt: 1) if you want to take a potshot at methods that are in your estimation - tired dogs - take aim. 2) beneficent and ruthless honesty - so that this doesn't descend into a religious war please be honest yet charitable. 3) No Ads - don't respond with [just] a product name, tell what it does, the underlying method / technology We are after the technically superior destination, emotions aside, barring past development investments. I'm trying to take a clean white board approach to this question and appreciate your help in answering it. A few to consider [just as starters]: i) old jacks - WRITE/READBLK from MV triggered by whatever signal/method ii) Ajax - Async jscript Xml iii) ODBC / JDBC Thanks so much, -Baker --- 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] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD]
Janet, When posting as a vendor or service provider, please use [AD] brackets [/AD] in your response as a courtesy to others. - Charles Barouch, Moderator Janet Bond wrote: I can setup a conference call with one of Developers. We have been in the transferring MultiValue data to other data sources since the early 80's (PK Harmony to start with, anyone remember). We may have some good input for you. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD]
I added it in the Subject should it be somewhere else? Please accept my apologies if I have offended anyone. Janet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:15 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD] Janet, When posting as a vendor or service provider, please use [AD] brackets [/AD] in your response as a courtesy to others. - Charles Barouch, Moderator Janet Bond wrote: I can setup a conference call with one of Developers. We have been in the transferring MultiValue data to other data sources since the early 80's (PK Harmony to start with, anyone remember). We may have some good input for 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] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD]
Gee Janet all you had to do was put This is not an ad, it's a fact of business in your posting and you would have been alright. grs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet Bond Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:37 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD] I added it in the Subject should it be somewhere else? Please accept my apologies if I have offended anyone. Janet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:15 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD] Janet, When posting as a vendor or service provider, please use [AD] brackets [/AD] in your response as a courtesy to others. - Charles Barouch, Moderator Janet Bond wrote: I can setup a conference call with one of Developers. We have been in the transferring MultiValue data to other data sources since the early 80's (PK Harmony to start with, anyone remember). We may have some good input for 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/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD]
[AD] Okay, let's play nice Chuck did say he missed the last letters of the subject. I will have Robert/Antoon Houben provide a comment for you all as they have a wealth of information and history with MultiValue systems. /AD Thank you, Janet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George R Smith Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:13 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD] Gee Janet all you had to do was put This is not an ad, it's a fact of business in your posting and you would have been alright. grs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet Bond Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:37 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD] I added it in the Subject should it be somewhere else? Please accept my apologies if I have offended anyone. Janet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:15 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms [AD] Janet, When posting as a vendor or service provider, please use [AD] brackets [/AD] in your response as a courtesy to others. - Charles Barouch, Moderator Janet Bond wrote: I can setup a conference call with one of Developers. We have been in the transferring MultiValue data to other data sources since the early 80's (PK Harmony to start with, anyone remember). We may have some good input for 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/ --- 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/
