RE: [U2] extended ascii characters and TOXML
Hi Mike, sorry, I'm not sure which UV release exactly contained the change. However, we use BizTalk 2004 & 2006 and as far as I know haven't had or heard of any issues with having an XML encoding attribute (utf-8, iso... or otherwise) with BT6 and I wouldn't expect any. MS seem to be fairly compliant (bar disallowing DTDs) with the W3.org standards in this area. I'd be interested to see the error message you're getting (if you want you can send it to me offline). ...just looking at a few BT6 sample XML documents I have around - they all contain an encoding="UTF-8" (or "utf-8") attribute. If you are using schema based receive ports, you should be able to generate a sample XML document from the receive port schema using Visual Studio - this will show you if it expects an encoding attribute or not. When we have data with extended ASCII - I do need to change the encoding attribute to make the XML valid. In this case I pass the XML through sed (a unix stream editor) to add or amend the encoding. HTH, Stuart >-Original Message- >We are in the process of upgrading our BizTalk 2004 server to BizTalk >2006 and have discovered that the BizTalk 2006 XML Disassembler in the >receive port no longer likes the "encoding="UTF-8" header at the top of >the XML doc. ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please reply to this e-mail to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery and then delete it and your reply. It is your responsibility to check this email and any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on. Spotless collects information about you to provide and market our services. For information about use, disclosure and access, see our privacy policy at http://www.spotless.com.au Please consider our environment before printing this email. ** --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] and PDF
Bill, Fyi.. We use pcl2pdf32 from visual software in the uk on windows server 2003 and UV 10.0.15: http://www.visual.co.uk/ However, I notice they will *start* to support hp-gl/2 in the next release: http://www.visual.co.uk/pcl2pdfwhatsnew.asp Our forms are all PCL and their solution has worked well for us for many years. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] and PDF
Troy: Well then, don't you think it's about time to completely reengineer your solution? :-) Bill >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Buss, >Troy (Logitek Systems) >Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:11 PM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] and PDF > >Bill, > >Fyi.. > >We use pcl2pdf32 from visual software in the uk on windows server 2003 >and UV 10.0.15: > >http://www.visual.co.uk/ > >However, I notice they will *start* to support hp-gl/2 in the next >release: http://www.visual.co.uk/pcl2pdfwhatsnew.asp > >Our forms are all PCL and their solution has worked well for >us for many >years. >--- >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] Unable to Create A Pipe
Insight on this run-time error would be appreciated... Unable to create a pipe.[EEXIST] File exists We are running UniVerse v10 on HP-Ux --Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Raid 0+1 versus Raid 10 1+0
phil walker wrote: Hi All, I have just read a slide from the U2 University sessions whereby it states... RAID 0+1 is absolutely the fastest implementation possible for disk drives t>Internal and External Disk Drives -Raid 0+1, striping and mirroring tWhen a mirrored disk drive is not committed to a WRITE, it is available for a READ tAdditional throughput from RAID 0+1 is about 40% tParity WRITEs never are in contention with the production disk drives. RAID 5 will have a parity WRITE be in conflict with the Production Disk Drives tHW level RAID implementation is far better than SW striping and HW mirroring tStripe size was 128K. Any larger, and a file can be on a singledisk drive. Can anyone tell me how it compares performance wise through theory or experience to RAID 10 which as a configuration is more fault tolerant and easier to rebuild? Raid O/1 and Raid 1/0 are exactly identical in terms of performance for an operational array. If you look at the actual IO operations, there is no difference from 0/1 and 1/0. Many hardware Raid vendors are sloppy and it is hard to tell if they are 1/0 or 0/1. Fortunately, it does not matter. I tend to call either RAID-10. The global statement "RAID 0+1 is absolutely ..." is also incorrect. The statement is usually true for applications that are doing a mix of random reads and writes to the array. If however, you have an application that is doing single-threaded large linear writes, then raid-5 or raid-50 will actually out-performance raid-10. For the users of this particular list, this probably does not matter, but there are cases where linear write throughput is important (think data logging). One thing to remember with RAID-10 is that read performance improves as you add drives, but only for applications that multi-thread. If you have a single process that is doing random reads, adding drives will only help with multiple users. The single user case will still be limited by the random read speed of a single drive. This is why we are working with Flash drives where the single thread read speed can be 40X that of a 15K RPM HDD, but that is another thread. Doug Dumitru EasyCo LLC Cheers, Phil. --- 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}
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. Synchr
[U2] Raid 0+1 versus Raid 10 1+0
Hi All, I have just read a slide from the U2 University sessions whereby it states... RAID 0+1 is absolutely the fastest implementation possible for disk drives t>Internal and External Disk Drives -Raid 0+1, striping and mirroring tWhen a mirrored disk drive is not committed to a WRITE, it is available for a READ tAdditional throughput from RAID 0+1 is about 40% tParity WRITEs never are in contention with the production disk drives. RAID 5 will have a parity WRITE be in conflict with the Production Disk Drives tHW level RAID implementation is far better than SW striping and HW mirroring tStripe size was 128K. Any larger, and a file can be on a singledisk drive. Can anyone tell me how it compares performance wise through theory or experience to RAID 10 which as a configuration is more fault tolerant and easier to rebuild? Cheers, Phil. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] extended ascii characters and TOXML {Unclassified}
Stuart,
Can you tell us when "IBM in their wisdom have decided to add a UTF8
encoding tag in the XML header"?
I think it was some time between 10.0.15 and 10.1.18, but not sure when.
It is, as you can see from the second message below, causing us grief in
our BizTalk 2006 upgrade.
We are looking at having to parse the generated XML and remove the UTF-8
references before sending it on.
[Hmm ... I wonder if replacing "UFT-8" with "ISO-8859-1" might work?]
Regards
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boydell, Stuart
Sent: Monday, 15 October 2007 8:30 p.m.
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] extended ascii characters and TOXML [was:select
statement with single quotes]
[snip]
IBM in their wisdom have decided to add a UTF8 encoding tag (Unicode) in
the XML header produced by the TOXML verb.
[snip]
__
From: MACK ANDREW, MR
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2007 2:27 p.m.
To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org'
Subject:[U2][UV] Generating XML documents {unclassified}
Hi all,
We are in the process of upgrading our BizTalk 2004 server to BizTalk
2006 and have discovered that the BizTalk 2006 XML Disassembler in the
receive port no longer likes the "encoding="UTF-8" header at the top of
the XML doc.
[snip]
Our &XML& mapping file has as the first line but
when the XML doc is generated, a 'encoding="UTF-8"' has been added, as
below.
http://NZDF.Defence.HR.BizTalk.Schemas.AtlasBankDat
aSchema"
xmlns:U2xml="http://www.ibm.com/U2-xml";>
The XML examples in the UV Basic Extensions documentation all show only
being generated, as per the map file. I need to
prevent the encoding="UTF-8" bit being added to the generated XML doc.
Can anyone help?
Thanks
Andrew Mack
Senior Database Manager (UV/SQL)
Applications Development, CIS Branch
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
---
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}
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 Mult
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non-MV dbms
Glen, You always get the good ones, doncha? What does the warehouse control system use as a database? How many different O/S are we looking at here? The first idea that comes to mind is transactional queuing and inspection. A FIFO updating situation will not work, since you have logic that is updating data on all sides of the triangle, potentially at the same time. You need all 3 facets of the system to contact and update a single data store. I would recommend either another MS SQL server or a MySQL server. With UV, you can access SQL tables as MV files, right?(MV triggers to update SQL maybe) Can you get the warehouse control system to read/write from that SQL database, too? As far as MS SQL, is there a reason that will prevent you from linking the existing MS SQL table structures to a central data store that will contain the (moved) data? I don't think you're going to get out of this without some major internal tweaking, data relocation, and application code changes. Well, I was actually only tasked with making the ATS more real time for our Asia sales office. Since they're entering orders during our night, they always get the short end of the stick, ATS may or may not be right; the batch updates are all timed/tuned for US timezone (and work pretty accurately heretofore). Anyway... we all hate partial solutions ... so one gets to contemplating, and one thing leads to another. I don't have enough clout around here to convince them to add yet another data store to their enterprise, but I agree with you - you must establish referential integrity to go real time with this cluster. UniVerse is presently the quasi-reference point [UniVerse is the center of our world - figure that out isaac asimov], but it's only perfectly accurate once a day. Answers to your questions: a) WCS uses an ISAM db b) Unix & Windows I like your solution to the puzzle Glen. ... clear thinking as always. rgds, -Baker --- 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
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:20 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). > Baker, You always get the good ones, doncha? What does the warehouse control system use as a database? How many different O/S are we looking at here? The first idea that comes to mind is transactional queuing and inspection. A FIFO updating situation will not work, since you have logic that is updating data on all sides of the triangle, potentially at the same time. You need all 3 facets of the system to contact and update a single data store. I would recommend either another MS SQL server or a MySQL server. With UV, you can access SQL tables as MV files, right?(MV triggers to update SQL maybe) Can you get the warehouse control system to read/write from that SQL database, too? As far as MS SQL, is there a reason that will prevent you from linking the existing MS SQL table structures to a central data store that will contain the (moved) data? I don't think you're going to get out of this without some major internal tweaking, data relocation, and application code changes. > 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. > You should ask Ross how he managed to get live data replication working with D3. [chop] Glen Batchelor IT Director All-Spec Industries phone: (910) 332-0424 fax: (910) 763-5664 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.all-spec.com Blog: http://blog.all-spec.com --- 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
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: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms Baker, How "live" and "active" is this bi-directional transfer likely to be? Do you need to consider the possibility of data collisions (ie: will someone change a record in your UV database that could also be changed on the "other" end) OR are the discrete changes somewhat "atomic transactions", with no chance of duplication Are both systems running "live" databases? What are you REALLY trying to do (your question is nearly as big as Texas) ... if you have some specific goal in mind, then some potential road blocks may be removed (or emerge) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage > Better by Design! --- 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
Sockets are just the pipe you push/pull things through. One of the features they bring to the table is that you get to (yes, I actually said that) design your own protocol for using them reliably or pick one of the already available protocols. FTP, HTTP, RCP, and telnet (and pretty much everything else in your local /etc/services file) are all sockets based protocols. Oh, and I think you could apply your statement to just about any data communications methodology and be correct. Ross Ferris wrote: > And SUCK if one side happens to go down & you need to resync (massive > amounts of) data I believe > > Ross Ferris > Stamina Software > Visage > Better by Design! > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny >> Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2007 2:36 AM >> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >> Subject: Re: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non >> MV dbms >> >> Is it just me or does it smell like troll in here all of a >> sudden >> >> Since the question as defined in the sentence below is pretty generic >> I'll respond in kind. Sockets. Inter process communication across >> disparate platforms and applications is just what they were made for. >> Low overhead, high throughput, and completely neutral as to data >> > format. > >> Baker Hughes wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> What is the fastest and lowest cpu overhead method of transferring >>> >> data >> >>> between U2/MV databases, and other data sources? >>> >>> >> [snip] >> >> -- >> --- >> > - > >> Jeff Schasny - Denver, Co, USA >> jeff at schasny dot com >> --- >> > - > >> --- >> u2-users mailing list >> u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >> To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ >> > --- > u2-users mailing list > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > > -- Jeff Schasny - Denver, Co, USA jeff at schasny dot com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] curious EQUATE issue - SOLVED Just want to know if anyone understands WHY?
Bill, So what you are saying is that it is bad usage of the equate statement even though it can be done. I agree and the '=' is used more often for this type of equation. However, this program was created 15 years ago (long before I started here) and had been working fine until the code was changed with the variable being inserted instead of the raw character causing us to wonder about why. The program is back to the way it was and is working fine. We just thought we could get an explanation from someone on the list as to why it made a difference and maybe let some of you all out there know to watch out for these little quirks of the language. Jerry -Original Message- From: Bill Haskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:11 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] curious EQUATE issue - SOLVED Just want to know if anyone understands WHY? Jerry: I hate to mention the obvious, but one should not equate anything unless they intend both sides of the equate to change when either variable changes. For instance, DIM MYREC(30) EQUATE MYREC.DATE TO MYREC(1) EQUATE MYREC.NAME TO MYREC(2) --etc-- Thus, whenever MYREC changes, due to a new record read, so does MYREC.DATE, etc. Alternatively, you simply have to alter MYREC.DATE to make sure the MYREC record has been changed too. To fix the problems you've encountered try: VALID.CC.TYPES = 'A':@VM:'B':@VM:'D':@VM:'M':@VM:'S':@VM:'V' VALID.CC.NAMES = 'American Express':@VM:'Carte Blanche':@VM:'Diners Club':@VM:'Mastercard':@VM:'Discover':@VM:'Visa' --- 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
I'd recommend MQSeries too, it is tried and tested technology - it works and works well. It has APIs for C, C++ and Java too. As Craig has pointed out, there is support in U2 BASIC from 10.x up for MQSeries AMI API (a subset of the full MQ API). MQSeries guarantees delivery, can offer confirmation (acknowledgement) of receipt of the message too. The message queuing mechanism is handy too, if you don't require realtime. All of this depends of the myraid of options you use to configuration your queue/channel and how you submit your message. The stumbling block is the initial license & setup costs. Installation and configuration really requires someone who knows there stuff when it comes to MQ. It's not for the faint hearted or someone who isn't familiar with it or similar technologies. It can handle huge data volumes and is well supported by IBM, third-parties and the end-user community. It is also multiplatform - IBM mainframe, IBM midrange, UNIX/Linux, Windows, etc. There are other messaging queue managers out there too. Regards, David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Bennett Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:33 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non Baker, if you want something that will run pretty much anywhere, high throughput and all the transport level thinking done for you why not IBM MQSeries (Websphere MQ). Pretty easy to integrate into any of the MV's through the C libraries and IBM already make it available in UV/UD. Maybe not as fast as pure sockets but: - Flexible - Batch, Realtime, Send & Receive, Send & Forget, Publish & Subscribe - Probably already works with your DB/Platform of choice - VERY reliable - Data format neutral -- send XML, Fixed Width, Dynamic Arrays, SQL statements whatever best fits your needs Craig --- 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
Well, you'll setting you requirements "high". But that's the thing to do... What business requirements do you have? What what constraints do you have? Budget? Deadlines? Can you afford to be bleeding-egde with no experienced in-house expertise to diagnose or support this "ideal" soltuon you're striving for? Lots of projects fail because they lose sight of the business requirements/drivers over the technical excellence and bleeding-edge technology (mainly put in for the sake of it or those expensive consultants recommended it). Regards, David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:58 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/
RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non MV dbms
Baker, How "live" and "active" is this bi-directional transfer likely to be? Do you need to consider the possibility of data collisions (ie: will someone change a record in your UV database that could also be changed on the "other" end) OR are the discrete changes somewhat "atomic transactions", with no chance of duplication Are both systems running "live" databases? What are you REALLY trying to do (your question is nearly as big as Texas) ... if you have some specific goal in mind, then some potential road blocks may be removed (or emerge) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage > Better by Design! >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baker Hughes >Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2007 5:05 AM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non >MV dbms > >Thanks Jerry for the introduction. Pleased to meet you Jeff. I don't >post everyday, sort of ebbs and flows with workload, so you may not have >seen me before... and I probably post more questions than answers ... >just glad to be a part. > > sort of refreshing to be called a troll, I stand 6'8" and >usually draw other names from folks > >Jeff - your response about sockets, along with Kevins, are noted. > >Thanks. Have a great day, >-Baker Hughes > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Banker >Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:10 PM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non >MV dbms > >Not likely, Baker Hughes has been in the PICK arena for many moons and >is one of the founders of the Texas users group. > >-Original Message- >From: Jeff Schasny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Is it just me or does it smell like troll in here all of a >sudden >--- >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
And SUCK if one side happens to go down & you need to resync (massive amounts of) data I believe Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage > Better by Design! >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny >Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2007 2:36 AM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: Re: [U2] Fastest Bi-Directional data transfer btwn MV and non >MV dbms > >Is it just me or does it smell like troll in here all of a >sudden > >Since the question as defined in the sentence below is pretty generic >I'll respond in kind. Sockets. Inter process communication across >disparate platforms and applications is just what they were made for. >Low overhead, high throughput, and completely neutral as to data format. > >Baker Hughes wrote: >> Hey, >> >> What is the fastest and lowest cpu overhead method of transferring >data >> between U2/MV databases, and other data sources? >> >[snip] > >-- >--- - >Jeff Schasny - Denver, Co, USA >jeff at schasny dot com >--- - >--- >u2-users mailing list >u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
