Upon login...
Cannot open GLOBAL file in SOFTWARE
Help would be appreciated.
--Bill
___
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Do you have an account named SOFTWARE that's supposed to have a file named
GLOBAL that your login command is looking for but can't find?
On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Brutzman, Bill wrote:
Upon login...
Cannot open GLOBAL file in SOFTWARE
Help would be appreciated.
--Bill
Hi,
We are on Solaris, running Universe and had a system failure the other day
which affected one of our distributed files. After running a uvfixfile on
the first partfile, we still got the message Warning: No link to overflow
group 325598. We were able to count/select the file without problems,
Hi,
We are on Solaris, running Universe and had a system failure the other day
which affected one of our distributed files. After running a uvfixfile on
the first partfile, we still got the message Warning: No link to overflow
group 325598. We were able to count/select the file without problems,
We've done Worldship with a live ODBC connection to Unidata for a number of
clients; I would think UV might be similar. To make the unique ID work, we
mapped @ID in Unidata to the box (not shipment) number in Worldship, as each
box is unique. This does create an interesting issue when dealing
Jeff,
I'm a little late on this, but we go to DOS and type:
kill pid
e.g. kill 7068
It takes a few seconds, but has never failed.
The pid still shows on our LISTU.WHO program, but typing
LO pid
takes it off.
Eric Armstrong
Lobel Financial
-Original Message-
From:
Here is an interesting tidbit I happened to run across.
PROGRAM A:
OPEN ,FILE1 TO F.FILE1 ELSE STOP NO FILE1
OPEN ,FILE2 TO F.FILE2 ELSE STOP NO FILE2
* F.FILETOUSE = F.FILE1 (Adding this here will get rid of the compile warning)
BEGIN CASE
CASE X=1 F.FILETOUSE = F.FILE1
CASE X=2
Instead of CASE -1 use CASE 1
--
From: George Gallen ggal...@wyanokegroup.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:23 PM
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: [U2] An interesting find
Here is an interesting tidbit I happened
they both function the same (1 or -1) doesn't matter, at least with UV.
But, either one, still give the same improper data type.
I find it interesting that when assigned within a case structure it doesn't work
but when assigned within an if-then structure it does work
it being able to assign a
Where does X get assigned in Program A? (Actually, in program B as well...)
Just curious...
Susan Lynch
F . W. Davison Company, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: George Gallen ggal...@wyanokegroup.com
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: 12/15/2009 2:23 PM
Subject:
Sorry, typo.
I Had X=1 after the OPENS in the original program
next time, I'll use cut and paste :)
-Original Message-
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-
boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Susan Lynch
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:02 PM
To:
In your example, the line:
CASE X=1 F.FILETOUSE = F.FILE1
should be
CASE X=1; F.FILETOUSE = F.FILE1
Without the semicolon, the CASE test is something like
(FMT(1,F.FILETOUSE)=F.FILE1) and possibly being considered true.
On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:23 PM, George Gallen wrote:
Here is an
I'm not too familiar with the Prime Flavor, but doesn't the CASE and the
setting of F.FILETOUSE need to be on separate lines or have a semi-colon
(;)?
CASE X=1 ; F.FILETOUSE = F.FILE1
CASE X=2
F.FILETOUSE = F.FILE2
Curt Stewart
TRI-SYS Consulting
-Original
AHA. You are correct. I don't usually have one line CASE's
and those pesky semicolons usually trip me up there.
Thanks...that was driving me nuts, because in the program I
used it in, I would much rather have a CASE structure than the
IF-THEN setup.
George
-Original Message-
From:
I admit I have never used this little jewel of a [UV] statement, so although
the code runs and works as designed, before I load it to production, someone
please tell me if there are any nuances that would improve the design/operation.
CASE RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) = LOCK$MY.READU
* This
The only consideration is that your second case statement picks up at -2
instead of -1.
I think you are going for
CASE RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) = LOCK$OTHER.READL which is the -1 return
value. At least according to the UniVerse documentation.
Regards,
Raul Dominguez
You may be better off using something like this instead:
DIM F.FILETOUSE(2)
OPEN FILE1 TO F.FILETOUSE(1) ELSE STOP NO FILE1
OPEN FILE2 TO F.FILETOUSE(2) ELSE STOP NO FILE2
then use F.FILETOUSE(X) - without the need for any conditional
statements, just ensure X is assigned properly.
The other consideration is that each case statement uses the same
RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) function reference, meaning it runs the function 3
times (according to your snippet).
I would normally assign the function result to a variable and test the
variable in the case statements:
stat.LOCK =
Assign the result to a variable: that reduces the i/o to the lock manager by
60%+
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Gregor Scott gregor.sc...@pentanasolutions.com
To: 'U2 Users List' u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED
Dave,
That's good to hear: went thu lots of pain with replication at last place.
However, can it be restarted after a crash, or does it keep enough data in
the pipe to recover and start replicating again?
thanks,
Brad
- Original Message -
From: David Wolverton
For redundancy, it's hard to beat triple mirrored drives on a SAN, with RFS
on a 4th i/o channel. You break the mirror between drives 2 3, and then
drive 1 2 remain mirrored. Back up off #3. When finished, reestablish
the mirror between 23. RFS can be then write to 2 drives with a 0,1
Someone needs to write an i/o agent, so U2 can be used with products like
Double-Take and keep record level integrity. Anyone with c++ experience out
there?
- Original Message -
From: Address mrparkl...@yahoo.com
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Wednesday,
Double-Take replicates byte by byte.
--- On Tue, 12/15/09, BraDav broadri...@comcast.net wrote:
From: BraDav broadri...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 6.1 Replication
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 10:56 PM
Someone needs to write an
Brad is right. You can get bitten by OS-level replication with U2 because
hashed files require more than one write when a record has to go to overflow
space. If the primary box crashes when only one of these writes is done, the
secondary box will have a corrupted file. There are also issues
24 matches
Mail list logo
