RE: Real Time Data Warehouse
Tom, I guess I am echoing various other responses, but here's my 2c anyway: 1. There are a whole host of tools that will populate a SQL database from UniVerse. (I recommend mvQuery: it's my product so I would anyway). You will need to consider how far each solution can be automated and what it allows in terms of reformatting information (mvQuery Print Server provides a server based request system that can be used to shedule regular exports, for example) but by and large getting the data across probably won't be your main problem. 2. I would put the actual data migration to one side initially, and consider first what you want to get out of this. I have seen very successful 'decision support' reporting come out of standard reporting when backed up by a knowledge of what an application actually holds. In my experience, it is usually the fact that managers do not know what information is actually available to them from a transactional system that is the key, and closing that knowledge gap (often on both sides as communication of requirements can also be rather thin) is far more important than jumping straight onto a given technical solution. You could go down the Cognos route and then discover what they really want is an Excel pivot table. 3. You might want to consider native OLAP solutions such as MITS, which runs directly on UniVerse. This might be a) cheaper and b) more flexible in the long run. 4. Before you do any of this, you may need to carefully audit what you have on your U2 system. One of the biggest problems with data warehousing is dirty data - missing entries, entries whose meaning has changed over time, similar but non matching data, etc. These should really be cleaned up at source, particularly if the warehouse is liable to change/respecification over its initial period. Verification is important too - the more abstract the data presented (and OLAP is by its nature highly abstract) the more opportunity for errors to go unnoticed. Again the verification may need to be close to the source data: I remember a systems manager saying to me beware the spurious credibility of a well presented report. Brian Leach This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files
For some strange reason, the DICT of each Part File needed to contain copies of the I-Types from the Distributed File's DICT in order for CREATE.INDEX to work correctly. Next question... To avoid having to copy DICT items to all the Part Files each time a change is made, I updated the VOC pointer of each Part File to look at the DICT for the Distributed File. This seemed to work fine for the CREATE.INDEX, and each INDEX.000 record within each of the I_files (one for each Part File) has correct index information for the records within it's part file. From a Distributed File perspective, does anyone see a problem with changing the DICT pointers for each Part File to look at the DICT of the Distributed File? Each Part File belongs to only this one Distributed File. If not, then how about the Indices themselves when combined with Distributed Files? Would each Part File not using it's own DICT cause a problem? Thanks! [EMAIL PROTECTED] group.comTo: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: u2-users-bounces@Subject: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files oliver.com 02/09/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List I've got a Distributed File that I'm trying to create indices on. Four of the fields are D-Types, and CREATE.INDEX runs fine for them. Three fields though, are I-Types (that are compiled and working), where CREATE.INDEX gives the following error: I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. Program *UVPRINTMSG: pc = 34, Variable previously undefined. Zero length string used. [00] All seven fields are working just fine as indices on the original file that was a Static Hashed file. I'm setting up the Distributed File to get around the 2GB limit issues. Does anyone know of any limitations putting secondary indices onto distributed files? Thanks! Gary Canedy --- This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, print, or copy the email, or take any action in reliance on its contents. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users --- This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, print, or copy the email, or take any action in reliance on its contents. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files
Sorry, forgot to mention: UniVerse 9.5 on AIX 4.3.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] group.comTo: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: u2-users-bounces@Subject: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files oliver.com 02/09/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List I've got a Distributed File that I'm trying to create indices on. Four of the fields are D-Types, and CREATE.INDEX runs fine for them. Three fields though, are I-Types (that are compiled and working), where CREATE.INDEX gives the following error: I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. Program *UVPRINTMSG: pc = 34, Variable previously undefined. Zero length string used. [00] All seven fields are working just fine as indices on the original file that was a Static Hashed file. I'm setting up the Distributed File to get around the 2GB limit issues. Does anyone know of any limitations putting secondary indices onto distributed files? Thanks! Gary Canedy --- This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, print, or copy the email, or take any action in reliance on its contents. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users --- This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, print, or copy the email, or take any action in reliance on its contents. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files
Except it's not a strange reason. The whole point of a distributed file is that any part of the file can be treated as a file in its own right, so it needs its own dictionary. And given that MV makes no distinction between data and dict portions at the structural level (and all that jazz), there's no reason why you can't have one dict portion serving every data portion. Beats most SQL databases I know of, where you can't point one definition table at several data tables, despite CoddDate saying that relational (like MV) isn't allowed to draw any fundamental distinction between data and the definition of that data. Index handling in distributed files is funny, but it makes perfect sense once you understand how DATA/DICT and distribution all fit logically together. Jump in with a superficial overview and you'll be well puzzled, look at it in depth and you'll understand how neat it actually is, and where it seems messy (as indeed it is) the alternatives are actually ten times worse ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 February 2004 20:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files For some strange reason, the DICT of each Part File needed to contain copies of the I-Types from the Distributed File's DICT in order for CREATE.INDEX to work correctly. Next question... To avoid having to copy DICT items to all the Part Files each time a change is made, I updated the VOC pointer of each Part File to look at the DICT for the Distributed File. This seemed to work fine for the CREATE.INDEX, and each INDEX.000 record within each of the I_files (one for each Part File) has correct index information for the records within it's part file. From a Distributed File perspective, does anyone see a problem with changing the DICT pointers for each Part File to look at the DICT of the Distributed File? Each Part File belongs to only this one Distributed File. If not, then how about the Indices themselves when combined with Distributed Files? Would each Part File not using it's own DICT cause a problem? Thanks! [EMAIL PROTECTED] group.comTo: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: u2-users-bounces@Subject: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files oliver.com 02/09/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List I've got a Distributed File that I'm trying to create indices on. Four of the fields are D-Types, and CREATE.INDEX runs fine for them. Three fields though, are I-Types (that are compiled and working), where CREATE.INDEX gives the following error: I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. I-descriptor must be compiled before execution. Program *UVPRINTMSG: pc = 34, Variable previously undefined. Zero length string used. [00] All seven fields are working just fine as indices on the original file that was a Static Hashed file. I'm setting up the Distributed File to get around the 2GB limit issues. Does anyone know of any limitations putting secondary indices onto distributed files? Thanks! Gary Canedy --- This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, print, or copy the email, or take any action in reliance on its contents. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users --- This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, print, or copy the email, or take any action in reliance on its contents. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not
Formatting a Negative
What's the exact command that places parenthesis around a negative number? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Formatting a Negative
But if you're doing it for accounting reasons, that's the convention. You use parentheses INSTEAD OF as negative sign. It makes it stick out because on the rhs the parens stands out in a column of its own. Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Olson Sent: 10 February 2004 15:10 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Formatting a Negative parens ??? theres the qoute() function or an conversion code oconv( negnum , 'MD' ) but you loose the - sign ex. negnum -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Baruch Salamander Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Formatting a Negative What's the exact command that places parenthesis around a negative number? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users Notice of Confidentiality: The information included and/or attached in this electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, distribution or the taking of action in reliance on the contents of the information is prohibited. If you believe that you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Formatting a Negative
OCONV(value, MDn) where n is your descale factor, e.g. Crt OConv(123.45,MD2) gives 1.23 Crt OConv(-123.45,MD2) gives 1.23 For more detail, HELP CONV MD (UniVerse). Brian Leach -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baruch Salamander Sent: 10 February 2004 15:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Formatting a Negative What's the exact command that places parenthesis around a negative number? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This email was checked by MessageLabs SkyScan before entering Microgen. This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
2 gig limits
Gentlemen, I was having a walk-around this Unidata system. I noticed that some of the files are approaching 2 gb and a couple of files are over 2 gb. Is there a future problem looming. What is the 2 gig limits mentioned in some of the email's? Dave Raven Mobile(949) 228 2224 e Fax (815)4259364 P.O. Box 17811, Irvine CA 92623-7811 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
TNET Client/Site licensing inquiry failed
I HAVE UNIDATA 5,2 IN WINDOWS 2000, And The FOLLOWING ERROR : Tipo de suceso: Error Origen del suceso: UDTnet Categoría del suceso: Ninguno Id. del suceso: 1002 Fecha: 09/02/2004 Hora: 07:14:52 p.m. Usuario: No disponible Descripción: TNET Client/Site licensing inquiry failed REINSTALL The DATA BASE AGAIN , And HAS BEEN CONTINUING LEAVING THIS ERROR. THIS ERROR REMOVES To ALL From the SYSTEM SOMEBODY HAS HAD THE SAME ERROR -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: TNET Client/Site licensing inquiry failed
In English (According to iTools.com): Type of event: Error Origin of the event: UDTnet Category of the event: Unknown Id. of the event: 1002 Date: 09/02/2004 Hour: 07:14:52 p.m. User: not available Description: TNET Client/Site licensing inquiry failed It sounds like a problem with Licencing, not with the software or the installation. Sonidos como un problema con Licencing, no con el software ni la instalación. Yimi Lopez wrote: I HAVE UNIDATA 5,2 IN WINDOWS 2000, And The FOLLOWING ERROR : Tipo de suceso: Error Origen del suceso: UDTnet Categoría del suceso: Ninguno Id. del suceso: 1002 Fecha: 09/02/2004 Hora: 07:14:52 p.m. Usuario: No disponible Descripción: TNET Client/Site licensing inquiry failed REINSTALL The DATA BASE AGAIN , And HAS BEEN CONTINUING LEAVING THIS ERROR. THIS ERROR REMOVES To ALL From the SYSTEM SOMEBODY HAS HAD THE SAME ERROR -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: 2 gig limits
I did not originally notice the OP stated they were a Unidata platform. My distributed file comments were related to UniVerse. However, when designing a UniVerse distributed file, it is wise to pick the number of part files that will keep each part file size *well below* the 2GB limit. Based on how uniform of a distribution your part file algorithm yields, and the total amount of data that needs to be stored, I'd set the goal of each part file to be about 1GB (or less) in size. By doing this, you'd have another gigabyte (or more) of available space in each part file to accommodate growth. If in doubt, I'd recommend using a larger number of part files rather than fewer of them for a given distributed file. For administration ease, I like to use distributed files where I can resize (static/hashed files) each part file individually on an as-need basis. It's much easier to find weekend time to resize one or more 1GB files (or smaller), than to find a single big enough weekend time slot to resize a single 64bit file that contains 30GB of data. Additionally, the various individual part files can be spread over multiple disk spindles, so disk I/O can be optimized. HTH, ken === In a message dated 2/10/2004 12:24:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subj: Re: 2 gig limits Date: 2/10/2004 12:24:18 PM Eastern Standard Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent from the Internet (Details Dave, If those 2GB files are static files then there is a serious problem in your future. If they are dynamic then they can grow beyond 2GB. FILE.STAT 'filename' at the colon prompt will tell you what the file is. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2 System Guru
If the file is corrupt, you need the file repaired, then distributed. Fixing the file can be a real bear at the 2GB limit because of group truncation and other issues. After you get that part solved (I could do it for you if you don't have local help and don't mind telecommuting administration), You can visit http://ourldsfamily.com/mypapers/dist.html for instructions on distributing files. Karl On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 20:38, Phil Grant wrote: Hello all, A client of mine is looking for a Universe on NT system expert. He got into a situation where a file grow to 2GB. Neither he or I knew of the file limit on 32 bit files. He would like someone to do a health check on his system. We contacted IBM but their prices are a bit steep. Thank in advance, Phil Grant 707-761-3707 He is no fool that gives up what he can not have, to gain what he can not lose. -- Karl L. Pearson Director of IT, ATS Industrial Supply Direct: 801-978-4429 Toll-free: 888-972-3182 x29 Fax: 801-972-3888 http://www.atsindustrial.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2 System Guru
The system was an IBM RS6000 with about 100-130 active users. The 80GB file actually had about 40GB of data in it (to allow for growth, as previously mentioned). These were usually large historical sales analysis files, where the worst file contained every invoice line item for the last 5-7 years. I'm sorry, but I do not remember the exact number of records, but in was clearly in the millions. ken === In a message dated 2/9/2004 11:24:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am curious. What size system are you running? How many users, hardware etc. How many records do you have in 80GB? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Login question for Universe/SB+
All, We use UniVerse/NT and SB+. It seems redundant to have to login to UniVerse with a valid user and password, then choose an account, and then login to SB+ with a user and password. What options do we have to avoid this redundant entry. Is there a way to pass the user's authentication information to UniVerse, or the Universe information to SB+? Thanks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U2 System Guru The system was an IBM RS6000 with about 100-130 active users. The 80GB file actually had about 40GB of data in it (to allow for growth, as previously mentioned). These were usually large historical sales analysis files, where the worst file contained every invoice line item for the last 5-7 years. I'm sorry, but I do not remember the exact number of records, but in was clearly in the millions. ken === In a message dated 2/9/2004 11:24:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am curious. What size system are you running? How many users, hardware etc. How many records do you have in 80GB? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
The 2GB file size limit is a traditional Unix-based operating system limit. The 2GB file limit appies to *all* files, UniVerse or not. Then maybe I missed something in an earlier post. What is a general suggestion if we expect any sort of file to be larger than 2 gigs? Thanks, JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
It would have to be a 64bit file, there are no exceptions as this is a limitation brought on by the size of a number. (I think a couple of earlier posters had the numbers involved) therefore you literally cannot create a file larger than 2Gb with 32 bit addressing. We have a substantial number of files over 2Gb and haven't had any issue with converting to or using 64bit files. If you expect a file to be 2Gb then just CREATE.FILE FILE.NAME type modulo separation OTHER.PARAMS 64BIT or if it is an existing file RESIZE FILE.NAME new.type new.module new.separation 64BIT will convert it in a trice (or two). Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Theis Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 7:12 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: 2 gig limits The 2GB file size limit is a traditional Unix-based operating system limit. The 2GB file limit appies to *all* files, UniVerse or not. Then maybe I missed something in an earlier post. What is a general suggestion if we expect any sort of file to be larger than 2 gigs? Thanks, JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
You can make larger files, but U2 cannot address them, unless you enable 64-bit addressing. The limit is in the unix file /etc/limits (at least on AIX), as fsize. Fsize is usually expressed in 512b chunks, so a) check, and b) figure out your upper size requirement in local block size. Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Jason Theis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:41:31 -0700 The 2GB file size limit is a traditional Unix-based operating system limit. The 2GB file limit appies to *all* files, UniVerse or not. Then maybe I missed something in an earlier post. What is a general suggestion if we expect any sort of file to be larger than 2 gigs? Thanks, JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Let the advanced features services of MSN Internet Software maximize your online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Login question for Universe/SB+
Jason Theis wrote: All, We use UniVerse/NT and SB+. It seems redundant to have to login to UniVerse with a valid user and password, then choose an account, and then login to SB+ with a user and password. What options do we have to avoid this redundant entry. Is there a way to pass the user's authentication information to UniVerse, or the Universe information to SB+? Thanks. You can put an entry in the VOC of the SB+ account for the user's name which looks like the following: dianne 001 PA 002 SB.LOGIN 003 DATA DIANNE 004 DATA MYPASSWORD The DIANNE on line 3 is the System Builder user and the MYPASSWORD on line 4 is the user's password. -Dianne -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
The limit is an old one from Unix having 32-bit addressing. On a system with 32-bit addressing, the limit applied to all files, including backup images (at least to disk - I'm not certain about on tape drives, although I'd assume so). Now, we have 64-bit addressing, so the upper limit is in the pentabyte range. UniVerse and Unidata still have a default configuration parameter of 32-bit addressing. This parameter is easily changed to 64. Currently, the cost associated with going to 64-bit addressing for UniVerse Unidata is the loss of a particular tool which is useful in repairing file corruption, filepeek. File corruption is pretty rare, but not unheard of, especially as hardware fails. By going to a scheme like RAID0+1 with transaction logging, you probably won't miss (watch the thread this starts...) filepeek. As an aside, reducing the amount of data in overflow reduces the risk of corruption, by minimizing the number of links, which are failure points. So you can enable U2 64-bit addressing in the (udt/uv)config file, which will then make the limit a historical curiosity. Or you can use dynamic files (although at the most - with a lot of luck - this gives you 4Gb), or in UniVerse you can use distributed files, which imho are a better choice anyway, making the size of a file limited only by your disk drive budget. Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Jason Theis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:40:15 -0700 We are looking to move to Universe. Does a 2 gig limit apply to Universe as well? Does it only apply to the backup or live data? JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Real Time Data Warehouse
I would question how real time the OLAP BI tools are never mind the database. Yes, the real-time requirement is ambiguous. It will be addressed as we flesh out the tactical analysis requirements for the BI tools. I would suspect they are looking for a dashboard solution rather than an OLAP tool. BI, OLAP, and reporting is required by the project (among some other things). BI will be used for tactical analysis using real-time data. OLAP will be used for strategic analysis using point-in-time data. And, reporting is essentially for generating external reports for customers. I have been putting a white paper together to try an identify that PICK is the platform of choice for this time of environment. I'm not going to touch that one... though I understand your point ~8^) Thanks for your response! Tom Firl -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: wIntegrate script- dialog box?
Yes. Execute the script 'example/script/wc.wis'. The STYLE for this script reads: Style WS_CAPTION|WS_POPUP|WS_VISIBLE|WS_SYSMENU|WS_MINIMIZEBOX|WS_GROUP Regards, Ian Renfrew - Original Message - From: Barry Brevik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 list (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: wIntegrate script- dialog box? wIntegrate v4.2.3. Is it possible to create a dialog box in a client-side script that is Non-Modal? When I use the dialog box editor, I don't get a choice, and it always creates a script that has a line like this: Style WS_CAPTION|WS_POPUP|WS_VISIBLE|WS_SYSMENU|DS_MODALFRAME The docs I got from the IBM site don't talk about the DS_MODALFRAME property, or if there is an alternative. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Real Time Data Warehouse
Just for some more background here is the real reason you are having to go through the ETL is so that the users can play with your data using 'standard' BI tools like Cognos against the SQL database ? Yes. Also, what USE is the information going to be put to ?! To be determined... but I get your message. Tactical analysis is a critical component in the businesses we cater to. Thanks for your response. Tom Firl -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
We only use AIX and possibly (at a later date) Linux. JT -Original Message- From: Geoffrey Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:41 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: 2 gig limits Under HP/UX there are some known bugs with 64-bit files in older UniVerse versions which can lead to file truncation. Be sure to research the applicable release for your O/S and make sure there are no known problems before you decide to implement this solution. On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 14:51, Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) wrote: It would have to be a 64bit file, there are no exceptions as this is a limitation brought on by the size of a number. (I think a couple of earlier posters had the numbers involved) therefore you literally cannot create a file larger than 2Gb with 32 bit addressing. We have a substantial number of files over 2Gb and haven't had any issue with converting to or using 64bit files. If you expect a file to be 2Gb then just CREATE.FILE FILE.NAME type modulo separation OTHER.PARAMS 64BIT or if it is an existing file RESIZE FILE.NAME new.type new.module new.separation 64BIT will convert it in a trice (or two). Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Theis Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 7:12 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: 2 gig limits The 2GB file size limit is a traditional Unix-based operating system limit. The 2GB file limit appies to *all* files, UniVerse or not. Then maybe I missed something in an earlier post. What is a general suggestion if we expect any sort of file to be larger than 2 gigs? Thanks, JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Geoffrey Mitchell 314-684-1062 Programmer/Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knights Direct -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Login question for Universe/SB+
In UD we don't have the VOC/user option so our LOGIN VOC item calls a program. This program takes the user (@logname) and determines the SB user, it then data's the user and password to SB.LOGIN. You could easily apply encryption to the passwords (they are encrypted in DMSECURITY as well). Note, you have to watch out for phantom processes if you do this. This is also how we run an 'overnight' process. We use the NT command scheduler (or crontab) to start a phantom process which our login program deals with. hth -- Colin Alfke Calgary, Alberta Canada Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that you can't fix it Stu Pickles -Original Message- From: Bruce Lunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a way to do this so that MYPASSWORD is encrypted? R. Bruce Lunt From: Dianne Ackerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason Theis wrote: All, We use UniVerse/NT and SB+. It seems redundant to have to login to UniVerse with a valid user and password, then choose an account, and then login to SB+ with a user and password. What options do we have to avoid this redundant entry. Is there a way to pass the user's authentication information to UniVerse, or the Universe information to SB+? Thanks. You can put an entry in the VOC of the SB+ account for the user's name which looks like the following: dianne 001 PA 002 SB.LOGIN 003 DATA DIANNE 004 DATA MYPASSWORD The DIANNE on line 3 is the System Builder user and the MYPASSWORD on line 4 is the user's password. -Dianne -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Real Time Data Warehouse
Another possible name for a real-time data warehouse is Operational Data Store (ODS). I'm somewhat familiar with the concept ODS, I don't think it will play a role in this project, but it is on my radar. Any approach to actually porting data to SQL Server, for example, sounds so small and innocent until two years down the line you add up the costs of hardware, software, training for users and IT, on-going support, etc and find that it was a much bigger expense than anyone estimated up front. I hear what you are saying... on more than one level. Thanks for your reply Dawn. Tom Firl -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
... On Behalf Of Dan Fitzgerald You can make larger files, but U2 cannot address them, unless you enable 64-bit addressing UV *mostly* handled 2GB files, but I had trouble enabling them for UV's transaction logging. If I remember, UV used a unix utility - maybe fsync? - that was only good for files 2GB. Many unix utilities won't work for files 2GB. I would the list suppose that might vary from platform to platform. I think I had trouble with rcp or cp the other day, too, but I don't remember. Rule of thumb: try to stay under 2GB. Chuck Stevenson -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: wIntegrate script- dialog box?
Yes. Execute the script 'example/script/wc.wis'. Thank you! I find scripting to very different than universe basic, heh heh. Barry -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[OT] Damian Conway on Perl 6 -- February 17 - Melbourne
Any Melbournian Perl jockies who might be interested in this? Apologies for the off-topic post. - Subject: Fwd: Damian Conway on Perl 6 -- February 17 Tuesday 17 February, 11am WEHI Lecture Theater (http://www.wehi.edu.au/about/locations.html) Parkville Prof Damian Conway School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University. Title: The Perl 6 Programming Language Abstract: Perl 6 will be a major improvement on Perl 5 in many ways: syntactically, semantically, psychologically, and performance-wise. This talk looks at what is known, surmised, guessed, wished for, and dreaded about Perl 6. It discusses the history, motivations, syntax, semantics, and likely idioms of the new Perl. About the speaker: Damian Conway holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science and is an Honorary Associate Professor with the School of Computer Science and Software Engineering at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. He is also the CEO and chief presenter of Thoughtstream Pty Ltd, an I.T. training company based in Australia. Thoughtstream provides world-class Perl training to Fortune 50 corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies around the world. Damian is the author of numerous well-known Perl software modules including: Class::Contract, Text::Autoformat, Parse::RecDescent, Text::Balanced, Lingua::EN::Inflect, Class::Multimethods, Switch, Quantum::Superpositions, NEXT, Filter::Simple, Attribute::Handlers, Inline::Files, and Coy (all available from your local CPAN mirror). A leading member of the international Perl community, Damian was the winner of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Larry Wall Awards for Practical Utility. He is a member of the technical committee for the annual Open Source Conference, and author of the book Object Oriented Perl. Renowned for his skills as a speaker, and for the entertaining and often off-beat nature of his technical talks, Damian is widely sought-after as a conference speaker. Currently Damian is collaborating with Larry Wall on the design of the new Perl 6 programming language. ** 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 email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
Hi Dan, We can use filepeek quite happily on our 64bit files. Do you mean uvfixfile? I know that has restrictions and cannot be used on 64bit files. The parameter in the uvconfig file is 64BIT. If this is set to 1, all files are created by default as 64bit files. Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Fitzgerald Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits The limit is an old one from Unix having 32-bit addressing. On a system with 32-bit addressing, the limit applied to all files, including backup images (at least to disk - I'm not certain about on tape drives, although I'd assume so). Now, we have 64-bit addressing, so the upper limit is in the pentabyte range. UniVerse and Unidata still have a default configuration parameter of 32-bit addressing. This parameter is easily changed to 64. Currently, the cost associated with going to 64-bit addressing for UniVerse Unidata is the loss of a particular tool which is useful in repairing file corruption, filepeek. File corruption is pretty rare, but not unheard of, especially as hardware fails. By going to a scheme like RAID0+1 with transaction logging, you probably won't miss (watch the thread this starts...) filepeek. As an aside, reducing the amount of data in overflow reduces the risk of corruption, by minimizing the number of links, which are failure points. So you can enable U2 64-bit addressing in the (udt/uv)config file, which will then make the limit a historical curiosity. Or you can use dynamic files (although at the most - with a lot of luck - this gives you 4Gb), or in UniVerse you can use distributed files, which imho are a better choice anyway, making the size of a file limited only by your disk drive budget. Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Jason Theis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:40:15 -0700 We are looking to move to Universe. Does a 2 gig limit apply to Universe as well? Does it only apply to the backup or live data? JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files
There's a few postings on this very topic in the archives, such as this from Glenn Herbert... http://www.indexinfocus.com/dl/u2list/200106/15105.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 7:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Secondary Indices on Distributed Files For some strange reason, the DICT of each Part File needed to contain copies of the I-Types from the Distributed File's DICT in order for CREATE.INDEX to work correctly. Next question... To avoid having to copy DICT items to all the Part Files each time a change is made, I updated the VOC pointer of each Part File to look at the DICT for the Distributed File. This seemed to work fine for the CREATE.INDEX, and each INDEX.000 record within each of the I_files (one for each Part File) has correct index information for the records within it's part file. From a Distributed File perspective, does anyone see a problem with changing the DICT pointers for each Part File to look at the DICT of the Distributed File? Each Part File belongs to only this one Distributed File. If not, then how about the Indices themselves when combined with Distributed Files? Would each Part File not using it's own DICT cause a problem? Thanks! -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
Yes; I remembered one of those didn't work, and I chose the wrong one. Shoulda fired up my UV server checked first... Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:42:55 +1100 Hi Dan, We can use filepeek quite happily on our 64bit files. Do you mean uvfixfile? I know that has restrictions and cannot be used on 64bit files. The parameter in the uvconfig file is 64BIT. If this is set to 1, all files are created by default as 64bit files. Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Fitzgerald Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits The limit is an old one from Unix having 32-bit addressing. On a system with 32-bit addressing, the limit applied to all files, including backup images (at least to disk - I'm not certain about on tape drives, although I'd assume so). Now, we have 64-bit addressing, so the upper limit is in the pentabyte range. UniVerse and Unidata still have a default configuration parameter of 32-bit addressing. This parameter is easily changed to 64. Currently, the cost associated with going to 64-bit addressing for UniVerse Unidata is the loss of a particular tool which is useful in repairing file corruption, filepeek. File corruption is pretty rare, but not unheard of, especially as hardware fails. By going to a scheme like RAID0+1 with transaction logging, you probably won't miss (watch the thread this starts...) filepeek. As an aside, reducing the amount of data in overflow reduces the risk of corruption, by minimizing the number of links, which are failure points. So you can enable U2 64-bit addressing in the (udt/uv)config file, which will then make the limit a historical curiosity. Or you can use dynamic files (although at the most - with a lot of luck - this gives you 4Gb), or in UniVerse you can use distributed files, which imho are a better choice anyway, making the size of a file limited only by your disk drive budget. Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Jason Theis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2 gig limits Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:40:15 -0700 We are looking to move to Universe. Does a 2 gig limit apply to Universe as well? Does it only apply to the backup or live data? JT -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
From: Dan Fitzgerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You can make larger files, but U2 cannot address them, unless you enable 64-bit addressing. The limit is in the unix file /etc/limits (at least on AIX), as fsize. Fsize is usually expressed in 512b chunks, so a) check, and b) figure out your upper size requirement in local block size. Can Unidata do 64 bit addressing? I thought only Universe that had capability. The answer to the original question is make the file dynamic. That's the quick fix and should handle the file in the long term. - jmh -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
From: Dan Fitzgerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] will then make the limit a historical curiosity. Or you can use dynamic files (although at the most - with a lot of luck - this gives you 4Gb), What makes you say this? We have some dynamic files that are well over 10-15 gig. They have multiple dat files that are all well under the 2 gig limit. - jmh -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Login question for Universe/SB+
What caught my attention was MYPASSWORD. I assumed (maybe wrongly?) that that was an ASCII string in the VOC. If that can be found by others then my password is not very secure. Or did I misunderstand? R. Bruce Lunt 408.832.1900 cell From: Bruce Lunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Login question for Universe/SB+ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:31:20 -0800 Is there a way to do this so that MYPASSWORD is encrypted? R. Bruce Lunt From: Dianne Ackerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Login question for Universe/SB+ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:58:33 -0500 Jason Theis wrote: All, We use UniVerse/NT and SB+. It seems redundant to have to login to UniVerse with a valid user and password, then choose an account, and then login to SB+ with a user and password. What options do we have to avoid this redundant entry. Is there a way to pass the user's authentication information to UniVerse, or the Universe information to SB+? Thanks. You can put an entry in the VOC of the SB+ account for the user's name which looks like the following: dianne 001 PA 002 SB.LOGIN 003 DATA DIANNE 004 DATA MYPASSWORD The DIANNE on line 3 is the System Builder user and the MYPASSWORD on line 4 is the user's password. -Dianne -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: 2 gig limits
From: Horn, John From: Dan Fitzgerald Or you can use dynamic files (although at the most - with a lot of luck - this gives you 4Gb), What makes you say this? We have some dynamic files that are well over 10-15 gig. They have multiple dat files that are all well under the 2 gig limit. John, as you noted in a previous post, UniVerse and UniData are different. UniVerse dynamic files allow only a single DATA.30 and a single OVER.30 file, so with 32bit addressing that allows a maximum of 2GB primamry data and 2GB of overflow, but of course it is very hard to organise a file to get close to that distribution of data between data and overflow. In UniData a dynamic file can contain up to 256 part files each of which can be configured up to 2GB if you really want, so there is no practical limit on the amount of data you can store even with 32bit addressing. I suspect Dan was busy thinking about UniVerse when he posted, even though the OP is actually running UniData. Cheers, Ken -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Login question for Universe/SB+
We use UniVerse/NT and SB+. It seems redundant to have to login to UniVerse with a valid user and password, then choose an account, and then login to SB+ with a user and password. Sure does. SB won't change this I'm guessing because their licencing relies on it. What options do we have to avoid this redundant entry. Is there a way to pass the user's authentication information to UniVerse, or the Universe information to SB+? Thanks. SB+ runs in Pick flavoured accounts, in UV the following applies. When you log into an account the UV shell looks for the login process. This could be a paragraph, proc or a basic program. The UV VOC login search hierarchy for a pick flavoured account is: UserName, AccountName, LOGIN. I would reckon the best way to set up the user login, would be at either the AccountName or LOGIN entry level (rather than having to maintain user entries). You could probably get away with setting everyones password to the same thing (and relying solely on unix passwords for security) - dependant on the strictures of your company security policy. The SB.LOGIN verb can take user name and password as command line entries so you don't have to data stack them. Maybe a program that did something like this. program LOGIN *... do any account initialisation setups * eg if @tty = 'phantom' ... * log into SB+ chain 'SB.LOGIN ':@account:',DummyPassword' end Unfortunately SB.LOGIN command line doesn't take terminal emulator entries, so if you have an ASK prompt for the users emulator then you will have to data stack the command. data @account,'DummyPassword','TU.VT220.GUI' chain 'SB.LOGIN' -- Stuart Boydell ** 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 email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Login question for Universe/SB+
One of the prior concerns that R. Bruce Lunt raised was about security - if you set all the SB+ passwords to be the same, you lose that. However, i'd like to add that if you've got users who do not have access to TCL; do not have access to a unix shell; and in effect, once they login can only do things from menu's programmed for them, then this is not an issue. At our site our users login under their own names at unix. All normal users share the same profile which is basically exec uv path uv SETUP where SETUP is our own program. And the purpose of exec is so that when the user finally reaches the last END statement in the chain of programs he runs, not only will the universe session terminate but also the unix session will too. Therefore, no access to TCL, no access to unix shell - does it really matter what the password to SB+ is ? A user won't have an option as to which name they login as - it will be provided from unix ? Their profile could look like cd sb directory ; exec uv path uv, and if VOC entries with DATA statements are present for the upper case version of the user name, all should be well ? This only applies however to normal users. For development staff who do have access to TCL, yes it does allow them to login to SB+ under someone else's name - but then, you've always got ED to hand edit files without using SB+ screens anyway - and that's another kettle of fish. I've written the above from a unix point of view - I don't know how you'd go about doing similar with NT but i'm sure it can be achieved. My .02 Andrew Gissing -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
