Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
It all sounds very interesting. The connection pooling works well with uo because otherwise each request has to open a new socket connection to unirpcd which then has to spawn a new udcs process which in turn has to spawn a udt process to do the work. That's a big overhead when you have several million , milli second hits per day. I will await the articles. Of course if you want to share a preview with me that would be most welcome. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: 01 December 2011 02:00 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection pooling are minimized. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4048 - Release Date: 11/30/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection pooling are minimized. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the same transaction is between 1 and 2. I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection pooling are minimized. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: 11/30/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Symeon: Your "pooling" connection is set up for a single dbms account, correct? You'd need a separate "pooling" license for each dbms account to access, correct? That is some dance you need to go through to do what, basically, the computer is supposed to do! Bill - Original Message - *From:* syme...@gmail.com *To:* 'U2 Users List' *Date:* 12/1/2011 8:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the same transaction is between 1 and 2. I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection pooling are minimized. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: 11/30/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store locations and spits it back. Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process takes. It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to 1 second consistently. So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I would add to the info. However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per session. So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll find out soon enough. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one is > pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the pooled one > is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the same transaction > is between 1 and 2. > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 second > timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this cos the pooled > connections hang several times a day (hence why I have to restart unirpcd > and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem is not in the DB code as > it happens randomly and with our logging it is definitely coming out of the > DB code and then refuses to accept any more data on the socket, and the > .net > code is very simple, so it must be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I > have tried several dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux > box > with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake > Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF web > service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my .net apps > that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session took much longer > then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a > consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two > Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection > pooling are minimized. > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: 11/30/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- John Thompson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
The amount of ram used by uv or udt is configurable - There are a whole heap of parameters and it is a subject in its own right. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson Sent: 01 December 2011 17:48 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store locations and spits it back. Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process takes. It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to 1 second consistently. So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I would add to the info. However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per session. So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll find out soon enough. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one > is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the > pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the > same transaction is between 1 and 2. > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 > second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this > cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have > to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem > is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it > is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any > more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must > be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to > no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box > with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake > Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF > web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my > .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session > took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a > consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two > Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection > pooling are minimized. > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: > 11/30/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- John Thompson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4050 - Release Date: 12/01/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
A pooling connection goes into 1 single account yes We have a special "shared" account for the pools with voc pointers to the real customer accounts . Part of the message passed to the backend is the customer so it opens the correct files etc. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: 01 December 2011 17:41 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Symeon: Your "pooling" connection is set up for a single dbms account, correct? You'd need a separate "pooling" license for each dbms account to access, correct? That is some dance you need to go through to do what, basically, the computer is supposed to do! Bill - Original Message - *From:* syme...@gmail.com *To:* 'U2 Users List' *Date:* 12/1/2011 8:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one > is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the > pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the > same transaction is between 1 and 2. > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 > second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this > cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have > to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem > is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it > is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any > more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must > be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box > with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake > Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF > web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my > .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session > took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a > consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two > Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection > pooling are minimized. > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: > 11/30/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4050 - Release Date: 12/01/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
We been using UOJ for 7 years now. We do not have any connection issues at all. We run 10k of transactions per day without even a hiccup with most sites averaging around 5k per day. Our average transaction speed according to firebug is about 200ms. Those transaction figures do not include the hits to the web server which are in 100k per hour at the largest site. We use Apache Tomcat as the web server. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:48 AM, John Thompson wrote: > I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's idea > to create some web applications > (none of which are live, except for a few management reports- not because > I've had problems, but, mainly because priorities keep changing - if you > know how that goes) > > At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an > Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. > The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store > locations and spits it back. > > Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process > takes. > It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a > string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever > in around 800 ms to 1 second consistently. > > So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I > would add to the info. > > However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per > session. > So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? > > Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our > production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll > find out soon enough. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
So how does the php script connect into unidata ? Is it using intercall ? if so it is exactly the same mechanism as uniobjects (via unirpcd) so what would the benefit be ? -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson Sent: 01 December 2011 17:48 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store locations and spits it back. Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process takes. It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to 1 second consistently. So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I would add to the info. However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per session. So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll find out soon enough. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one > is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the > pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the > same transaction is between 1 and 2. > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 > second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this > cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have > to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem > is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it > is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any > more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must > be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to > no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box > with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake > Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF > web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my > .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session > took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a > consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two > Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection > pooling are minimized. > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: > 11/30/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- John Thompson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4050 - Release Date: 12/01/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
That always seemed just "/*wrong*/" to me! I could never figure out why a connection pool license would work this way. Sure puts a crimp on a number of potentialities. :-) Bill - Original Message - *From:* syme...@gmail.com *To:* 'U2 Users List' *Date:* 12/1/2011 11:52 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection A pooling connection goes into 1 single account yes We have a special "shared" account for the pools with voc pointers to the real customer accounts . Part of the message passed to the backend is the customer so it opens the correct files etc. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: 01 December 2011 17:41 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Symeon: Your "pooling" connection is set up for a single dbms account, correct? You'd need a separate "pooling" license for each dbms account to access, correct? That is some dance you need to go through to do what, basically, the computer is supposed to do! Bill - Original Message - *From:* syme...@gmail.com *To:* 'U2 Users List' *Date:* 12/1/2011 8:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the same transaction is between 1 and 2. I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection pooling are minimized. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Kevin's idea of using Apache as the connector and php as the scripting language... Works like so... And Kevin can chime in if I get something wrong, because I certainly did not architect this. Imagine this scenario. -A Linux Web Server running Apache -A U2 server (with some form of nix) also running Apache -A php script on the Linux Web Server sends a http request with some data and a U2 subroutine name to the U2 server. -A php script on the U2 server receives this request and fires a U2 session, which then calls a subroutine, takes the data, writes out a result, and then logs off. -The Linux Web Server then gets the request back and presents it to the user. So really all you are doing, is sending http requests to the U2 server and getting a response back. Pretend that two web servers are communicating (i.e. curl, etc.). However, they are on the local network sitting next to each other in this case. In the login Paragraph of the account you want to use, you have to write some code to detect some nix environment variables that are set telling U2 that it will be an Apache session (you create your own) so that any menus or whatever don't get called. So in essence, instead of using UniObjects, you are using Apache, and shelling U2 processes as you need them. However, you eluded to the fact that your requests take 300 ms or so. These requests usually take around 800 ms to 1 sec (at least on my 5 year old AIX box using firebug). I have never worked with UniObjects for java. It sounds like the previous poster has had some good success with it. I think Kevin's goals in this scenario above, were to keep it simple, and make it cross platform, while still getting good performance. I just happened, to stumble into him at a conference and have been borrowing the idea. So I'll leave Kevin to comment on any further details that I did not cover, or may have covered poorly. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > So how does the php script connect into unidata ? Is it using intercall ? > if so it is exactly the same mechanism as uniobjects (via unirpcd) so what > would the benefit be ? > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson > Sent: 01 December 2011 17:48 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's idea > to create some web applications (none of which are live, except for a few > management reports- not because I've had problems, but, mainly because > priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) > > At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an > Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. > The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store > locations and spits it back. > > Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process > takes. > It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a > string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to 1 > second consistently. > > So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I > would > add to the info. > > However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per > session. > So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? > > Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our > production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll > find out soon enough. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: > > > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one > > is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the > > pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the > > same transaction is between 1 and 2. > > > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 > > second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this > > cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have > > to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem > > is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it > > is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept any > > more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it must > > be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several dll's to > > no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box > > with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake > > Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 > > To: U2 Users List > > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > > > Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF > > web service that manages a
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
So, no... it does not use intercall. I guess the benefits would be: -No Windows Server (if you consider this a benefit) -Simple -No UniObjects (if you consider this a benefit) -Cross Platform -You could still use Windows server if you wanted (Apache runs on Windows Server too) (Maybe that might be a requirement for your .NET stuff) The cons might be: -Half a millisecond slower -No pooling (Unless you could do some cool stuff with apache) -"Not the official way to do it" -Not supported by Rocket I guess On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, John Thompson wrote: > Kevin's idea of using Apache as the connector and php as the scripting > language... > > Works like so... > And Kevin can chime in if I get something wrong, because I certainly did > not architect this. > > Imagine this scenario. > > -A Linux Web Server running Apache > -A U2 server (with some form of nix) also running Apache > -A php script on the Linux Web Server sends a http request with some data > and a U2 subroutine name to the U2 server. > -A php script on the U2 server receives this request and fires a U2 > session, which then calls a subroutine, takes the data, writes out a > result, and then logs off. > -The Linux Web Server then gets the request back and presents it to the > user. > > So really all you are doing, is sending http requests to the U2 server and > getting a response back. Pretend that two web servers are communicating > (i.e. curl, etc.). However, they are on the local network sitting next to > each other in this case. > > In the login Paragraph of the account you want to use, you have to write > some code to detect some nix environment variables that are set telling U2 > that it will be an Apache session (you create your own) so that any menus > or whatever don't get called. > > So in essence, instead of using UniObjects, you are using Apache, and > shelling U2 processes as you need them. > > However, you eluded to the fact that your requests take 300 ms or so. > These requests usually take around 800 ms to 1 sec (at least on my 5 year > old AIX box using firebug). > > I have never worked with UniObjects for java. It sounds like the previous > poster has had some good success with it. > > I think Kevin's goals in this scenario above, were to keep it simple, and > make it cross platform, while still getting good performance. I just > happened, to stumble into him at a conference and have been borrowing the > idea. So I'll leave Kevin to comment on any further details that I did not > cover, or may have covered poorly. > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > >> So how does the php script connect into unidata ? Is it using intercall ? >> if so it is exactly the same mechanism as uniobjects (via unirpcd) so what >> would the benefit be ? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org >> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson >> Sent: 01 December 2011 17:48 >> To: U2 Users List >> Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection >> >> I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's >> idea >> to create some web applications (none of which are live, except for a few >> management reports- not because I've had problems, but, mainly because >> priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) >> >> At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an >> Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. >> The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store >> locations and spits it back. >> >> Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process >> takes. >> It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a >> string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to 1 >> second consistently. >> >> So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I >> would >> add to the info. >> >> However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per >> session. >> So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? >> >> Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our >> production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll >> find out soon enough. >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: >> >> > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one >> > is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the >> > pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the >> > same transaction is between 1 and 2. >> > >> > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 >> > second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this >> > cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have >> > to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem >> > is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it >> > is definitely coming out of the DB code an
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
TBH I think there is a problem with our version of unirpcd. Uoj and uo.net I think both work pretty much the same way. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Doug Averch Sent: 01 December 2011 19:57 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection We been using UOJ for 7 years now. We do not have any connection issues at all. We run 10k of transactions per day without even a hiccup with most sites averaging around 5k per day. Our average transaction speed according to firebug is about 200ms. Those transaction figures do not include the hits to the web server which are in 100k per hour at the largest site. We use Apache Tomcat as the web server. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:48 AM, John Thompson wrote: > I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's > idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except > for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, > mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) > > At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an > Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. > The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 > store locations and spits it back. > > Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV > process takes. > It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a > string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to > 1 second consistently. > > So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I > would add to the info. > > However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per > session. > So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? > > Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for > our production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I > guess I'll find out soon enough. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4050 - Release Date: 12/01/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Esp as sql server express (yes the free one) comes with 100 connection pools out of the box. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: 01 December 2011 20:26 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection That always seemed just "/*wrong*/" to me! I could never figure out why a connection pool license would work this way. Sure puts a crimp on a number of potentialities. :-) Bill - Original Message - *From:* syme...@gmail.com *To:* 'U2 Users List' *Date:* 12/1/2011 11:52 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > A pooling connection goes into 1 single account yes > > We have a special "shared" account for the pools with voc pointers to the > real customer accounts . Part of the message passed to the backend is the > customer so it opens the correct files etc. > > > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Bill > Haskett > Sent: 01 December 2011 17:41 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Symeon: > > Your "pooling" connection is set up for a single dbms account, correct? > You'd need a separate "pooling" license for each dbms account to > access, correct? > > That is some dance you need to go through to do what, basically, the > computer is supposed to do! > > Bill > > -- > -- > - Original Message - > *From:* syme...@gmail.com > *To:* 'U2 Users List' > *Date:* 12/1/2011 8:36 AM > *Subject:* Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection >> Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - >> one is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using >> the pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for >> the same transaction is between 1 and 2. >> >> I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 >> second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this >> cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I have >> to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem >> is not in the DB code as it happens randomly and with our logging it >> is definitely coming out of the DB code and then refuses to accept >> any more data on the socket, and the .net code is very simple, so it >> must be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I have tried several >> dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux box >> >> with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh . >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org >> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake >> Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 >> To: U2 Users List >> Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection >> >> Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF >> web service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my >> .net apps that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session >> took much longer then processing most of my requests if the session >> was already open. >> -Original Message- >> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org >> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King >> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM >> To: U2 Users List >> Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection >> >> Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a >> consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the >> two Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by >> connection pooling are minimized. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4050 - Release Date: 12/01/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Our test harness works in such a manner - shelling out to start a udt process is not very scaleable IMO and does sound rather inefficient. Also from a licencing point of view each shelled out process will take a udt license. These are limited so the number of apache requests would also have to be limited. But also with anything through unirpcd device licencing can be used (the first 10 connections from the same ip take just one licence) this would not be possible if php is just shelling out to udt. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson Sent: 01 December 2011 20:27 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection Kevin's idea of using Apache as the connector and php as the scripting language... Works like so... And Kevin can chime in if I get something wrong, because I certainly did not architect this. Imagine this scenario. -A Linux Web Server running Apache -A U2 server (with some form of nix) also running Apache -A php script on the Linux Web Server sends a http request with some data and a U2 subroutine name to the U2 server. -A php script on the U2 server receives this request and fires a U2 session, which then calls a subroutine, takes the data, writes out a result, and then logs off. -The Linux Web Server then gets the request back and presents it to the user. So really all you are doing, is sending http requests to the U2 server and getting a response back. Pretend that two web servers are communicating (i.e. curl, etc.). However, they are on the local network sitting next to each other in this case. In the login Paragraph of the account you want to use, you have to write some code to detect some nix environment variables that are set telling U2 that it will be an Apache session (you create your own) so that any menus or whatever don't get called. So in essence, instead of using UniObjects, you are using Apache, and shelling U2 processes as you need them. However, you eluded to the fact that your requests take 300 ms or so. These requests usually take around 800 ms to 1 sec (at least on my 5 year old AIX box using firebug). I have never worked with UniObjects for java. It sounds like the previous poster has had some good success with it. I think Kevin's goals in this scenario above, were to keep it simple, and make it cross platform, while still getting good performance. I just happened, to stumble into him at a conference and have been borrowing the idea. So I'll leave Kevin to comment on any further details that I did not cover, or may have covered poorly. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > So how does the php script connect into unidata ? Is it using intercall ? > if so it is exactly the same mechanism as uniobjects (via unirpcd) so > what would the benefit be ? > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John > Thompson > Sent: 01 December 2011 17:48 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's > idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except > for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, > mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) > > At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an > Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. > The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 > store locations and spits it back. > > Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV > process takes. > It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a > string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to > 1 second consistently. > > So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I > would add to the info. > > However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per > session. > So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? > > Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for > our production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I > guess I'll find out soon enough. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: > > > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - > > one is pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using > > the pooled one is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for > > the same transaction is between 1 and 2. > > > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 > > second timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this > > cos the pooled connections hang several times a day (hence why I > > have to restart unirpcd and kill off the pooled udt processes) The > > problem is not in the DB code as it happens randomly a
[U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8
Has anyone used Uniobjects for Java with Domino 8? If so, have you had luck with it. Any best practice suggestions? Charles Shaffer Senior Analyst NTN-Bower Corporation ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
It probably does this to keep it simple. If the pooled connection had to keep logging to different accounts for each of its connection it would have to keep track of where it was and which connection used which account. This would likely slow it down and open an attach vector that could be exploited. Not impossible to do - but may not be a good risk vs. return for Rocket. At least until we can get more vendors to host multi-customer based servers. Colin -Original Message- From: Bill Haskett That always seemed just "/*wrong*/" to me! I could never figure out why a connection pool license would work this way. Sure puts a crimp on a number of potentialities. :-) Bill - Original Message - *From:* symeonb > A pooling connection goes into 1 single account yes > > We have a special "shared" account for the pools with voc pointers to the > real customer accounts . Part of the message passed to the backend is the > customer so it opens the correct files etc. > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Haskett > > Symeon: > > Your "pooling" connection is set up for a single dbms account, correct? > You'd need a separate "pooling" license for each dbms account to access, > correct? > > That is some dance you need to go through to do what, basically, the > computer is supposed to do! > > Bill ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8
Hi, I'm also interested in any advice / best practices for UO for Java on Domino. It would certainly be nice to find a small user group to ask questions and bounce around best practices. I haven't tried using UniObjects for Java with Domino yet, but I have used the original OLE/COM version of UniObjects in LotusScript agents on Domino 8.5. We have been using that for some small-scale production jobs for the past year, and it has worked really well. The main problem I have is that the OLE/COM version of UniObjects hasn't been updated in years, and it doesn't seem to have a 64-bit version. I have looked for alternatives, like trying to register the UO for .Net client as an OLE/COM object, but for some reason that only exposes a handful of classes and methods; the vast majority of the functionality doesn't seem to be configured to work when accessed as an OLE/COM object. So unless Rocket releases a 64-bit version of the original UniObjects, my fallback plan is to move to UniObjects for Java, but I've been putting it off until I have some more time or find other people doing something similar to help motivate me. :-) Cheers, Jim Stoner Lead Programmer/Analyst SUNY Empire State College From: charles_shaf...@ntn-bower.com To: , > Date: 12/01/2011 03:38 PM Subject:[U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8 Sent by:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org Has anyone used Uniobjects for Java with Domino 8? If so, have you had luck with it. Any best practice suggestions? Charles Shaffer Senior Analyst NTN-Bower Corporation ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8
Jim Stoner Said >>It would certainly be nice to find a small user group to ask >>questions and bounce around best practices. I would definitely be interested in that. >>I haven't tried using UniObjects for Java with Domino yet, but I have used >>the original OLE/COM version of UniObjects in LotusScript agents on Domino >>8.5. The COM library with LotusScript is what I've done in the past as well. The direct integration with Java archives is very interesting to me, but I haven't gotten into it much yet. Charles Shaffer Senior Analyst NTN-Bower Corporation From: jim.sto...@esc.edu To: U2 Users List , Date: 12/01/2011 02:53 PM Subject:Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8 Sent by:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org Hi, I'm also interested in any advice / best practices for UO for Java on Domino. It would certainly be nice to find a small user group to ask questions and bounce around best practices. I haven't tried using UniObjects for Java with Domino yet, but I have used the original OLE/COM version of UniObjects in LotusScript agents on Domino 8.5. We have been using that for some small-scale production jobs for the past year, and it has worked really well. The main problem I have is that the OLE/COM version of UniObjects hasn't been updated in years, and it doesn't seem to have a 64-bit version. I have looked for alternatives, like trying to register the UO for .Net client as an OLE/COM object, but for some reason that only exposes a handful of classes and methods; the vast majority of the functionality doesn't seem to be configured to work when accessed as an OLE/COM object. So unless Rocket releases a 64-bit version of the original UniObjects, my fallback plan is to move to UniObjects for Java, but I've been putting it off until I have some more time or find other people doing something similar to help motivate me. :-) Cheers, Jim Stoner Lead Programmer/Analyst SUNY Empire State College From: charles_shaf...@ntn-bower.com To: , > Date: 12/01/2011 03:38 PM Subject:[U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8 Sent by:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org Has anyone used Uniobjects for Java with Domino 8? If so, have you had luck with it. Any best practice suggestions? Charles Shaffer Senior Analyst NTN-Bower Corporation ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] Universe 10.2.9
Dear U2 Users We are running Universe 10.2.9 on Solaris 10 Sparc 64 bit and experience performance issues. System is taking way too many system calls . We have SUN m5000 and SUn6180 for storage. does any body have any suggestions for uvconfig and systems file on solaris 10. Please help thanks Sincerely, Hariprasad D QUICK INTERNATIONAL COURIER 175-28 148th avenue Jamaica, New York 11434 http://www.quickintl.com Phone : 718 995 3616 extn 2418 Fax:718 995 6805 Efax : 718 887 7382 Mobile Phone: (917) 751 5877 No part of this communication, including attachments, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of Quick International Courier (or Sterling Courier - a division of Quick). This document is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
Keep in mind, the session only stays open for 1 second and then logs off. So you would just need enough licenses for the amount of traffic you had. Which brings us back to the stupid per user license fees that I hate that software companies do, but, thats a whole other can of worms. Nothings perfect it seems. Maybe one day there will be a better "web" connector for MV. So far all the ones I've seen, either aren't very well documented, or they have some problem or other. Then again, I haven't been doing this that long... just my initial observations. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Our test harness works in such a manner - shelling out to start a udt > process is not very scaleable IMO and does sound rather inefficient. Also > from a licencing point of view each shelled out process will take a udt > license. These are limited so the number of apache requests would also have > to be limited. But also with anything through unirpcd device licencing can > be used (the first 10 connections from the same ip take just one licence) > this would not be possible if php is just shelling out to udt. > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson > Sent: 01 December 2011 20:27 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Kevin's idea of using Apache as the connector and php as the scripting > language... > > Works like so... > And Kevin can chime in if I get something wrong, because I certainly did > not > architect this. > > Imagine this scenario. > > -A Linux Web Server running Apache > -A U2 server (with some form of nix) also running Apache -A php script on > the Linux Web Server sends a http request with some data and a U2 > subroutine > name to the U2 server. > -A php script on the U2 server receives this request and fires a U2 > session, > which then calls a subroutine, takes the data, writes out a result, and > then > logs off. > -The Linux Web Server then gets the request back and presents it to the > user. > > So really all you are doing, is sending http requests to the U2 server and > getting a response back. Pretend that two web servers are communicating > (i.e. curl, etc.). However, they are on the local network sitting next to > each other in this case. > > In the login Paragraph of the account you want to use, you have to write > some code to detect some nix environment variables that are set telling U2 > that it will be an Apache session (you create your own) so that any menus > or > whatever don't get called. > > So in essence, instead of using UniObjects, you are using Apache, and > shelling U2 processes as you need them. > > However, you eluded to the fact that your requests take 300 ms or so. > These requests usually take around 800 ms to 1 sec (at least on my 5 year > old AIX box using firebug). > > I have never worked with UniObjects for java. It sounds like the previous > poster has had some good success with it. > > I think Kevin's goals in this scenario above, were to keep it simple, and > make it cross platform, while still getting good performance. I just > happened, to stumble into him at a conference and have been borrowing the > idea. So I'll leave Kevin to comment on any further details that I did not > cover, or may have covered poorly. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > > > So how does the php script connect into unidata ? Is it using intercall > ? > > if so it is exactly the same mechanism as uniobjects (via unirpcd) so > > what would the benefit be ? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John > > Thompson > > Sent: 01 December 2011 17:48 > > To: U2 Users List > > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > > > I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's > > idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except > > for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, > > mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes) > > > > At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an > > Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. > > The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 > > store locations and spits it back. > > > > Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV > > process takes. > > It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a > > string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to > > 1 second consistently. > > > > So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I > > would add to the info. > > > > However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per > > session. > > So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? > > > > Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV L
Re: [U2] Universe 10.2.9
What do you mean by "way too many system calls"? Are you comparing this to previous performance numbers? rex ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8
We've been using UOJ with WebSphere App Server since around 2003. Not quite the same as Domino, I realize, but at least under the same IBM Java middleware umbrella. I can't offer a lot the way of best practices, but I can say that the combination is robust and trouble-free. This is more OS related, but if you're connecting to or from a linux box you need to make sure the LANG environment variable is set correctly. The RedHat default is incorrect for UOJ (at least up to EL 5) and will result in MV delimiters being incorrectly translated into other ascii characters. RedHat EL 5 stores the LANG value in /etc/sysconfig/i18n and the official setting I was given by IBM is "en_US.iso885915". Another gotcha I've run into in the past (also not app platform specific) is difficutly isolating bugs in UV subroutines that cause an abort. The result is a hung unirpc connection and a corresponding consumed license. If this problem happens in a frequently called subroutine, you can quickly find yourself with no UV licenses left. To isolate offending subroutines, I created a tracking subroutine that gets called at the beginning of each subroutine with the caller's name as an argument. The tracking subroutine does the following: EXECUTE 'DUM ':PROG.NAME Where DUM is a dummy VOC entry that does nothing. This allows me to see the last subroutine called by the hung UOJ session in the PORT.STATUS output. The one best practice I can offer is to have a UniBASIC front-end utility for every UniBASIC UOJ subroutine for troubleshooting purposes. That way if you run into the situation above, you can call the subroutine from TCL and step through it in the debugger. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of charles_shaf...@ntn-bower.com Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:08 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8 Jim Stoner Said >>It would certainly be nice to find a small user group to ask questions >>and bounce around best practices. I would definitely be interested in that. >>I haven't tried using UniObjects for Java with Domino yet, but I have used >>the original OLE/COM version of UniObjects in LotusScript agents on Domino >>8.5. The COM library with LotusScript is what I've done in the past as well. The direct integration with Java archives is very interesting to me, but I haven't gotten into it much yet. Charles Shaffer Senior Analyst NTN-Bower Corporation From: jim.sto...@esc.edu To: U2 Users List , Date: 12/01/2011 02:53 PM Subject:Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8 Sent by:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org Hi, I'm also interested in any advice / best practices for UO for Java on Domino. It would certainly be nice to find a small user group to ask questions and bounce around best practices. I haven't tried using UniObjects for Java with Domino yet, but I have used the original OLE/COM version of UniObjects in LotusScript agents on Domino 8.5. We have been using that for some small-scale production jobs for the past year, and it has worked really well. The main problem I have is that the OLE/COM version of UniObjects hasn't been updated in years, and it doesn't seem to have a 64-bit version. I have looked for alternatives, like trying to register the UO for .Net client as an OLE/COM object, but for some reason that only exposes a handful of classes and methods; the vast majority of the functionality doesn't seem to be configured to work when accessed as an OLE/COM object. So unless Rocket releases a 64-bit version of the original UniObjects, my fallback plan is to move to UniObjects for Java, but I've been putting it off until I have some more time or find other people doing something similar to help motivate me. :-) Cheers, Jim Stoner Lead Programmer/Analyst SUNY Empire State College From: charles_shaf...@ntn-bower.com To: , > Date: 12/01/2011 03:38 PM Subject:[U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8 Sent by:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org Has anyone used Uniobjects for Java with Domino 8? If so, have you had luck with it. Any best practice suggestions? Charles Shaffer Senior Analyst NTN-Bower Corporation ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Universe 10.2.9
Dear U2 users We have been having this issue since we moved to Solaris 10 and universe 10.2.9 We are having big storage - Sun 6180 with raid 1+ 0 config. Also the connection between the storage is 8gb Fiber . If the machine has a load of 23 , system slows down . users experience a big lag switching between screens in the database . Total no users who login during peak time is about 320 . >Dear U2 Users > > >We are running Universe 10.2.9 on Solaris 10 Sparc 64 bit > >and experience performance issues. > >System is taking way too many system calls . > >We have SUN m5000 and SUn6180 for storage. > >does any body have any suggestions for uvconfig >and systems file on solaris 10. > >Please help > > > No part of this communication, including attachments, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of Quick International Courier (or Sterling Courier - a division of Quick). This document is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] U2-Users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 1
Hi John, everyone, So you asked my opinion, I think - and I will give it! This is what I think about buying something: everything is negotiable. This is what I think about the cloud and risk: it has to balance out. Are you gaining enough benefit by moving the data to the cloud to risk losing it? And what does losing it mean, really? And what are the real chances of that loss? Can you mitigate the loss by taking your own backups...? Or can you hold the vendor's feet to the fire and insist they warrant their backup and security? Here's another thing about the cloud - its newish. What is going to be standard has yet to be evolved. I can promise you that there are cloud service providers that warrant the data. And I can promise you that there are consumers (including military, for example) that simply require that. I reckon you pay for it. It is a balancing act. I'm a small business - but I'm moving to the cloud more and more. But I actually backup what's there as routinely as I ever did. It's just easier. And that's my 2c. Let us know what you decide! Susan Joslyn -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:25:00 -0500 From: John Thompson To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Cloud Legal Question - and a request for Contact Info - IT Legal Issues Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The company I work for is looking at a product that stores a bunch of "our" sales data in the "cloud" Our internal legal person had a look at the contract that the company is proposing and apparently it has a little clause in their that they are not liable if the data gets stolen. Is this standard with cloud products? Also, I remember some folks at Spectrum talking about this, and I still have the business cards, but, I am not in the office, AND I foolishly forgot to store them in my contacts. Susan J., I think you probably talked about this? Maybe I can have my legal person fill out a contact form on your site? (sj+ dot com) -- John Thompson -- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:33:06 + From: Daniel McGrath To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Cloud Legal Question - and a request for Contact Info - IT Legal Issues Message-ID: <5bd6632ff31e684ba6fb6d8c2da98f8422bef...@nwt-s-mbx2.rocketsoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >From AWS Amazon's customer agreement: "FURTHER, NEITHER WE NOR ANY OF OUR AFFILIATES OR LICENSORS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT, OR DAMAGES ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH: (D) ANY UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF, OR THE DELETION, DESTRUCTION, DAMAGE, LOSS OR FAILURE TO STORE ANY OF YOUR CONTENT OR OTHER DATA" I think you will find it is quite common. That is why it is extremely important to analyze the risks vs benefits of any outsourcing, particularly of your data and take any necessary precautions (such as encrypting your data) to minimize those risks. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Thompson Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:25 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Cloud Legal Question - and a request for Contact Info - IT Legal Issues The company I work for is looking at a product that stores a bunch of "our" sales data in the "cloud" Our internal legal person had a look at the contract that the company is proposing and apparently it has a little clause in their that they are not liable if the data gets stolen. Is this standard with cloud products? Also, I remember some folks at Spectrum talking about this, and I still have the business cards, but, I am not in the office, AND I foolishly forgot to store them in my contacts. Susan J., I think you probably talked about this? Maybe I can have my legal person fill out a contact form on your site? (sj+ dot com) -- John Thompson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:37:53 +1100 From: David Jordan To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Cloud Legal Question - and a request for Contact Info - IT Legal Issues Message-ID: <6F91EB9F76538448AB0D1D84E19424D15F139ED072@DACONOSBSERVER2.daconosbs.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Something people do not understand with many cloud applications. When they say multitenant, that means that I have 1 table per function for all clients. So my customer file would have a key client.no*customer.no, my parts file would be client.no*part.no and so on. How client 1 sees only client 1 data is dependent on the software selecting client 1 from each table. You cannot secure a database on the basis of an index, so client 1 and client 2 have the same access to the database and depend on se
Re: [U2] [UV] Multi-account access
> From: Symeon Breen > A pooling connection goes into 1 single account yes > We have a special "shared" account for the pools with > voc pointers to the real customer accounts. Part of > the message passed to the backend is the customer so > it opens the correct files etc. Rather than having a pointer in the VOC for every file and using code like this: OPEN "CUSTOMER*":COMPANY TO FCUST ELSE * return error what about this?: CALL GET.PATH.FOR(COMPANY,PATH) OPENPATH PATH:"/CUSTOMER" TO FCUST ELSE... That works with hashed files as well as dir files. That will eliminate the hassle of pointers. (OPENPATH is available for Universe, not UniData, right?) Traditional apps just open the local database file, and generally don't allow for different fiscal entities per account (no COMPANY reference in the filename). As we've seen this has become a real hassle in web integration, even with connection pooling which locks to a single account. But if you're going to modify your app anyway to accommodate using a different pointer for every file, you might as well change OPEN to OPENPATH. Is there any reason why this isn't technically sound? T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Cloud Legal Question - and a request for Contact Info - ITLegal Issues
> From: John Thompson > The company I work for is looking at a product that > stores a bunch of "our" sales data in the "cloud" > > Our internal legal person had a look at the contract > that the company is proposing and apparently it has a > little clause in their that they are not liable if the > data gets stolen. Is this standard with cloud products? There is a separation of responsibilities that needs to be understood by everyone these days. We expect the data centers for cloud companies to be secure. Once we give them data we expect them to hold onto it. And if we are paying them to do something with the data, we expect them to do that with full reliability. That's Their responsibility. But we also pay these cloud services for increasing types of accessibility to our data. With more accessibility, there are more opportunities for data exposure. We cannot expect them to accept responsibility for vulnerabilies which we ourselves may create, which includes: - transport outside of a VPN - transport of plain text data - open transport of credentials (user/psw) - exposure of credentials whether on lost devices, stickynotes on the monitor, or a list in one's wallet And in this world of networked data we must understand that security is always a moving target. The environment that is secure today could be compromised tomorrow after a patch is applied or simply through the constantly improving skills of bad guys. It's very difficult for a company to accept responsibility for constantly changing details outside of their control. Sure, we expect that a cloud company will protect data on-site against theft or acts of nature, but in a networked environment there are points of exposure. They can strive to protect their systems and networks against hacks but this is a huge ongoing expense and it's an imperfect science where occasionally even the top professionals are caught unaware. They can strive to create a contract that explains how they will accept responsibility for their side of the environment while not being liable for damages due to issues outside of those definitions. But that leaves contracts vague and open to contention. It's better for them simply to say they're not liable for losses. Accept it or don't. There is also the question of what liability really is. Is a compromise of your data worth $100 or $1 Million? To avoid such evaluation in a claim, it's better to just get the issue waived up front. You can accept this or reject the premise and try to get someone else with an insurance company that will settle high-value claims. In a non-litigious world, the simplest and most honest contract might read "We really do the best job we can, and we think we do better than our competition, but if anything at all bad happens, we simply can't accept blame or pay any damages. Welcome to the modern world. If you accept this, we'd love to do business with you. If not, we're sorry, but we can't take a chance on going out of business for something that's not related to what we really do." For your part, when you do host data off-site, use every encryption and security mechanism available to protect your business outside of the scope of the services provided by the cloud host. This becomes your responsibility. Then you need to figure out how you're going to convey Your position on liabilities to Your clients. "We really do the best job we can..." So the bottom line here is that you get the best contract you can, and try to get clarifications or commitments in writing. But you also need to balance expectations with an understanding of the world we're living in, and cover for vulnerabilities with your own solutions where possible. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Universe 10.2.9
Out of curiosity... and I don't know much about this... but I've read a little bit about it... Are you using ZFS as the underlying Solaris filesystem? If so, I think it has a lot of tweaking options, as well as other options that might play havoc if untested with UV. Things like compression, the way RAID-Z handles things, etc. In Fact, I think Oracle ended up recommending in one article I read to not use RAID-Z for some database implementations, but, just use the ZFS mirroring, because the performance was that much better. Anyway, it might be something worth looking at if you are stumped. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide (There are also a bunch more links at the bottom of this) Most of it is out of my line of expertise, but, there it is for what its worth. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Hariprasad Duggi wrote: > Dear U2 users > > We have been having this issue since we moved to Solaris 10 > and universe 10.2.9 > > We are having big storage - Sun 6180 with raid 1+ 0 config. > Also the connection between the storage is 8gb Fiber . > > If the machine has a load of 23 , system slows down . users experience a > big lag switching between screens in the database . > > Total no users who login during peak time is about 320 . > > > > >Dear U2 Users > > > > > >We are running Universe 10.2.9 on Solaris 10 Sparc 64 bit > > > >and experience performance issues. > > > >System is taking way too many system calls . > > > >We have SUN m5000 and SUn6180 for storage. > > > >does any body have any suggestions for uvconfig > >and systems file on solaris 10. > > > >Please help > > > > > > > > > > > No part of this communication, including attachments, may be > reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without > the express written permission of Quick International Courier (or > Sterling Courier - a division of Quick). This document is intended > for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is > privileged and confidential. > > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- John Thompson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8
I follow John's policy in all web integration. All external access comes through a single entry point which identifies the purpose of the connection and transfers to an appropriate subroutine. I also include logging abilities in most code, just in case. Code below is made up for this example and not stylistically elegant nor complete. : SUBROUTINE ENTRY.POINT(QUERY,RESPONSE) INCLUDE WEB.COMMON * that routine does initialization, logging, breaks up query, etc BEGIN CASE CASE OPERATION="CUSTINQ" CALL WEB.CUSTINQ(QUERY,RESPONSE) CASE 1 ; * bad request END CASE INCLUDE WEB.EXIT RETURN SUBROUTINE WEB.COMMON COMMON VARS(100) INCLUDE WEB.EQUATES ; * assign name to all VARS IF NOT(INITIALIZED) THEN GOSUB INIT IF LOGGING THEN GOSUB LOG RETURN SUBROUTINE WEB.EXIT IF LOGGING THEN GOSUB LOG ... RETURN Since all code includes WEB.COMMON, note from above that when LOGGING is active all routines will log on entry, and all programs have access to the common LOG function. HTH T > From: John Hester > Another gotcha I've run into in the past (also not app > platform specific) is difficutly isolating bugs in UV > subroutines that cause an abort. The result is a hung > unirpc connection and a corresponding consumed > license. If this problem happens in a frequently > called subroutine, you can quickly find yourself with > no UV licenses left. To isolate offending > subroutines, I created a tracking subroutine that gets > called at the beginning of each subroutine... ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection
John's description of the two Apache method was spot on as was his description of my rationale for coming up with it: > I think Kevin's goals in this scenario above, were to keep it simple, and > make it cross platform, while still getting good performance. Having waited YEARS for a PHP connector into U2, I finally got tired of waiting. This notion that "the vendor" (and I mean ANY vendor, myself included) is the commander of all solutions and we the community should just wait patiently for whatever is handed down, well, that's as outdated as most MV licensing models or party-based political systems. Note that I'm making no claims about the two Apache method except that it demonstrates we have the ability today to connect to U2, QM, and I suspect (but have not proven) other MV databases. It is hopefully a foundation that we as a community can build upon and improve Multivalue's visibility in the connected world. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
