RE: How far can U2 scale?
In reply to what Steve wrote re: app level problems with scability: In a way you're right, in that an app written for small scale systems cannot easily be scaled upward to infinity without having serious bottleneck issues. No matter what tool (read language/RAD/whatever) is used, if the design has built in toe-jammers, it simply aint gonna work. However, if the designers knew upfront what scale to aim at, it's easy. Keys are prefixed with some kind of sub-structure label to break-down the scale to managable levels, eg branch, warehouse, or if requiring specifically numeric, ranges of number are set for each sub-structure, eg 100,000 - 200,000 for New Jersey, with scalability built in with the same number range for each million increase, eg 1,100,000 - 1,200,000, 2,100,000 - 2,200,000, etc (many ways to skin said cat) The thing about bad design is that its faults exponentially increase by number of users. Bigger hardware doesn't help. Developers with tunnel vision don't help. Most of all, patch jobs don't help. Then again, if weren't for all these, we wouldn't have jobs. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
In a message dated 4/26/2004 1:07:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Well I think that's going to depend on the application. > >In an application where some users need read-only access to a few > databases, > >AND where they are not doing mass updates then it could be > fine. > > I agree. But thats not clustering then is it? I suppose that depends on your definition of clustering then doesn't it :) Your turn. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:49 AM >Well I think that's going to depend on the application. >In an application where some users need read-only access to a few databases, >AND where they are not doing mass updates then it could be fine. I agree. But thats not clustering then is it? >If a users >says "show me the on-hand quanties for part xxx-yy" and it doesn't matter if it >takes a second or two to come up, then UV Net or any other similar product >would be fine. I suppose that depends on the response time expectations of your users. The last time I worked on an project which attempted to utilized UvNet (disclaimer: this was several years ago, perhaps performance has improved recently)it was unsuitable for interactive applications (i.e. freaking slow). YMMV >However if that same user wants to update every sales order with (empty) tax >to a sales order with zero tax, and you have one million past sales orders ... >then you might have a problem. >Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
In a message dated 4/26/2004 7:58:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The HP superdome systems I've seen running Universe apps were single large > multiprocessor systems. One notable example was for a wholesale > distribution company running 400+ branches and around 7500 users on a single > 24 processor machine attached to a large EMC Clariion disk array. One big > database too. > > In my experience UV Net is much too slow to use as a clustering tool. Well I think that's going to depend on the application. In an application where some users need read-only access to a few databases, AND where they are not doing mass updates then it could be fine. If a users says "show me the on-hand quanties for part xxx-yy" and it doesn't matter if it takes a second or two to come up, then UV Net or any other similar product would be fine. However if that same user wants to update every sales order with (empty) tax to a sales order with zero tax, and you have one million past sales orders ... then you might have a problem. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale? France Telecom
About the discussion regarding France Telecom : Their 30,000 UniVerse licences is their installed park : These licences are geographically dispatched onto 5 pairs of IBM servers connected via UV/Net. Each system have its backup system. Daily average number of "Telnet" connected users is 2,500 on server "A", and 1,500 on server "B" Daily average number of "UV/Net" connected users on server "A" is 500 (coming from "B"), and 800 on server "B" (coming from "A") Due to the nature of the applications, "UV/Net" communication between sites are not very frequent but may exist. The large difference between the number of licences France Telecom purchases and their actual average number of users is due to the criticity and "non-stop" purpose of their applications. Due to these criteria, the hardwares are dimensionned to securely support 30% more of system load increase, and so must do the UniVerse and UV/Net licences. I cannot communicate the exact configurations used. In few words, I can say that the UniVerse applications at France Telecom are both CRM and complex technical data management running on servers "A", and proprietary enterprise resource planning running on servers "B". The oldest applications were initially wrote 20 years ago for few tens of users (on "IN2" boxes = "InterTechnique" french legacy hardwares)... and I agree saying that these had to be reviewed in some cases. At present, not all the files on a given server are accessed concurrently by the quoted number of users, but the main files are. Hervé BALESTRIERI Support Technique Avancé - IBM Data Management - Produits "U2" Tel.: (33) 01 49 97 12 20Fax : (33) 01 49 97 12 21 Notes : Herve Balestrieri/France/IBM e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.ibm.com/software/u2/ - Forwarded by Herve Balestrieri/France/IBM on 26/04/2004 17:00 - "Anthony Dzikiewicz" To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: ts.com> Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? Sent by: u2-users-bounces@ oliver.com 26/04/2004 16:27 Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List What does the hardware look like for a system with this many users ? Are they all running the same apps going after the same data ? Is UV/NET involved ? I curious on how you would scale up to a large number of users running the same application. Would you beef up the machine or would it be better to hook up a number of machines with UV/NET linking them together ? Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Claus Derlien Sent:Friday, April 23, 2004 9:58 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? afaik france telecom has 3 users online on a universe/unidata system and i also think there is a hp superdome running 3000 users in gb looks like its scalable to me :-) Claus Derlien edb-afdelingen direkte : 63 13 86 69 email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 3:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How far can U2 scale? > > > At what point in the life of application software would it be > so large that > you could not (or would not want to) support it with your > existing UniData > or UniVerse database? > > Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or > Oracle, for > example due to the scale you are working with? > > I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do > ODBC and use > standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not > greener for > those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of > running into > scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as
RE: How far can U2 scale?
The HP superdome systems I've seen running Universe apps were single large multiprocessor systems. One notable example was for a wholesale distribution company running 400+ branches and around 7500 users on a single 24 processor machine attached to a large EMC Clariion disk array. One big database too. In my experience UV Net is much too slow to use as a clustering tool. -Original Message- From: Anthony Dzikiewicz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 7:27 AM What does the hardware look like for a system with this many users ? Are they all running the same apps going after the same data ? Is UV/NET involved ? I curious on how you would scale up to a large number of users running the same application. Would you beef up the machine or would it be better to hook up a number of machines with UV/NET linking them together ? Anthony -Original Message- afaik france telecom has 3 users online on a universe/unidata system and i also think there is a hp superdome running 3000 users in gb looks like its scalable to me :-) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
What does the hardware look like for a system with this many users ? Are they all running the same apps going after the same data ? Is UV/NET involved ? I curious on how you would scale up to a large number of users running the same application. Would you beef up the machine or would it be better to hook up a number of machines with UV/NET linking them together ? Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Claus Derlien Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:58 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? afaik france telecom has 3 users online on a universe/unidata system and i also think there is a hp superdome running 3000 users in gb looks like its scalable to me :-) Claus Derlien edb-afdelingen direkte : 63 13 86 69 email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 3:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How far can U2 scale? > > > At what point in the life of application software would it be > so large that > you could not (or would not want to) support it with your > existing UniData > or UniVerse database? > > Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or > Oracle, for > example due to the scale you are working with? > > I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do > ODBC and use > standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not > greener for > those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of > running into > scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing > small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their > products as scaling the best. > > So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn > > Dawn M. Wolthuis > Tincat Group, Inc. > www.tincat-group.com > > Take and give some delight today. > > > > -- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > ** > ** > Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com > ** > ** > Frie Funktionærer - faglig organisation og tværfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk *** Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. *** This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you. *** -- 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: How far can U2 scale?
Well, Charlie, If you had fired up The DPMonitor, even in Evaluation 10 day free trail mode, and had an Agent running before & after you did the raid 5 to raid 1+0 switch, you would have been able to precisely measure and graphical compare I/O improvements, as well as all the other improvements throughout your platform as a result of the change. Try it, you'll like it. Regards, Scott Systems Engineer at large - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 6:50 AM Subject: Re: How far can U2 scale? Ross, Actually, we just had a reason to care. We just changed from raid 5 to raid 1+0, and wanted to determine how and where we achieved performance increase. We weren't interested in knowing how we compared to a museum machine, but in how we compared to the weekend before. We did see quite a performance increase in disk related functions, but it's rather difficult to quantify just how much faster it is overall for any given user in a normal work day. Regards, Charlie Noah Inland Truck Parts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, assuming the Spirit was a 1x machine (I seem to recall a small DEC 1400 (?) being a 2x - sooo many years) if the spirit could complete 10,000 "transactions" in a quanta of time, and the new machine finishes the same task (approximating real world environment) in some fraction of this time, then it should be fairly straight forward to work out the X rating. I seem to recall that the "omnipresent" CUBS benchmark was trying to achieve the same thing . they may even have some old benchmarks from a known "X rating" machine, allowing an approximation of modern equipment to be made --> not that I think anyone really cares these days, as X tends to be sufficiently large ! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage â an Evolution in Software Development -- 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: How far can U2 scale?
Ross, Actually, we just had a reason to care. We just changed from raid 5 to raid 1+0, and wanted to determine how and where we achieved performance increase. We weren't interested in knowing how we compared to a museum machine, but in how we compared to the weekend before. We did see quite a performance increase in disk related functions, but it's rather difficult to quantify just how much faster it is overall for any given user in a normal work day. Regards, Charlie Noah Inland Truck Parts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, assuming the Spirit was a 1x machine (I seem to recall a small DEC 1400 (?) being a 2x - sooo many years) if the spirit could complete 10,000 "transactions" in a quanta of time, and the new machine finishes the same task (approximating real world environment) in some fraction of this time, then it should be fairly straight forward to work out the X rating. I seem to recall that the "omnipresent" CUBS benchmark was trying to achieve the same thing . they may even have some old benchmarks from a known "X rating" machine, allowing an approximation of modern equipment to be made --> not that I think anyone really cares these days, as X tends to be sufficiently large ! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage â an Evolution in Software Development -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
So, assuming the Spirit was a 1x machine (I seem to recall a small DEC 1400 (?) being a 2x - sooo many years) if the spirit could complete 10,000 "transactions" in a quanta of time, and the new machine finishes the same task (approximating real world environment) in some fraction of this time, then it should be fairly straight forward to work out the X rating. I seem to recall that the "omnipresent" CUBS benchmark was trying to achieve the same thing . they may even have some old benchmarks from a known "X rating" machine, allowing an approximation of modern equipment to be made --> not that I think anyone really cares these days, as X tends to be sufficiently large ! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, 25 April 2004 2:34 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: How far can U2 scale? > >In a message dated 4/24/2004 2:32:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> Again, what would an 'x' be in MHZ. Or for that fact, what would a MCD >> spirit 600 be. One of my clients still has one and I could reference it >> against some of my 2.4Ghz D3 clients. > >There is no comparison because the 'X' was a measurement of the transaction >speed, not the clock speed. There are several layers between clock speed >and >transaction speed. Ted was trying to measure the real-world, business >needs as >opposed to the propeller-head ones which MHZ measures :) >My own 2 cents and a pickle. >Will >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
In a message dated 4/24/2004 2:32:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Again, what would an 'x' be in MHZ. Or for that fact, what would a MCD > spirit 600 be. One of my clients still has one and I could reference it > against some of my 2.4Ghz D3 clients. There is no comparison because the 'X' was a measurement of the transaction speed, not the clock speed. There are several layers between clock speed and transaction speed. Ted was trying to measure the real-world, business needs as opposed to the propeller-head ones which MHZ measures :) My own 2 cents and a pickle. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
I know it was an Ultimate. I worked with MCD during that time and they used the ultimate x's somewhat for comparison purposes. I worked with Ted in 1978-79 before he spun off from 4 Gary Rd. Again, what would an 'x' be in MHZ. Or for that fact, what would a MCD spirit 600 be. One of my clients still has one and I could reference it against some of my 2.4Ghz D3 clients. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: "Roger Glenfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 11:17 AM Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? > Circa 1983-85. I'm pretty sure that Ted was showing off a Honeywell Level 6 > and not a Microdata. > > Ultimate's X calculations were based on the native speed of the cpu. > > Original Level 6, circa 1979-81 = 1x > The 5x board came out in 1982-83. If I remember correctly, my tests showed > the speed was more like 3-4 times faster. But you could add a bunch more > terminals without slowing down. > I never saw a 7x and don't know when it came out. > We had one site that needed a 10x, but Ultimate and Honeywell Bull Germany > couldn't keep the machine stable. So the site went to another platform. > > At least that's my 20 year old recollections. > Roger > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of Mark Johnson > > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 12:55 AM > > To: U2 Users Discussion List > > Subject: Re: How far can U2 scale? > > > > > > A bit of history here. I'm sure that these high user counts all > > participate > > with telnet connections. Back in the day, I believe circa 1983-5, Ted > > Sabarese, president of Ultimate, illustrated one of the highest number of > > connected *serial* terminals on one system. It was an interesting > > photograph > > as he lined up 1,000 dumb terminals on the bleachers at a local > > high school > > and had them all BLOCK-PRINTing something like their port number. > > > > I don't exactly remember the machine's specs, but given the Microdatas of > > that time it probably had 260MB disc drive, 8 MB of 'core' memory and the > > latest '14x' processor. Boy, I wish I knew what those speeds of > > those older > > systems were in today's terms. 2x, 7x, 14x...What's an 'x'? IIRC, the > > original IBM-PC was 4.7Mhz. > > > > My 4.7 cents. > > > > > > > -- > 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: How far can U2 scale?
Circa 1983-85. I'm pretty sure that Ted was showing off a Honeywell Level 6 and not a Microdata. Ultimate's X calculations were based on the native speed of the cpu. Original Level 6, circa 1979-81 = 1x The 5x board came out in 1982-83. If I remember correctly, my tests showed the speed was more like 3-4 times faster. But you could add a bunch more terminals without slowing down. I never saw a 7x and don't know when it came out. We had one site that needed a 10x, but Ultimate and Honeywell Bull Germany couldn't keep the machine stable. So the site went to another platform. At least that's my 20 year old recollections. Roger > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Mark Johnson > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 12:55 AM > To: U2 Users Discussion List > Subject: Re: How far can U2 scale? > > > A bit of history here. I'm sure that these high user counts all > participate > with telnet connections. Back in the day, I believe circa 1983-5, Ted > Sabarese, president of Ultimate, illustrated one of the highest number of > connected *serial* terminals on one system. It was an interesting > photograph > as he lined up 1,000 dumb terminals on the bleachers at a local > high school > and had them all BLOCK-PRINTing something like their port number. > > I don't exactly remember the machine's specs, but given the Microdatas of > that time it probably had 260MB disc drive, 8 MB of 'core' memory and the > latest '14x' processor. Boy, I wish I knew what those speeds of > those older > systems were in today's terms. 2x, 7x, 14x...What's an 'x'? IIRC, the > original IBM-PC was 4.7Mhz. > > My 4.7 cents. > > -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
"X" was a benchmark available at the time. I am not certain, but I think it was written and published by Ultimate. Assuming my memory is correct on that, a 2X ADDS machine would be one that ran the Ultimate benchmark twice as fast as the original Ultimate machine did. Maybe someone with a better memory has more details. Anybody have a copy of the old X benchmark laying around? -- Regards, Clif ~~~ W. Clifton Oliver, CCP CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES Tel: +1 619 460 5678Web: www.oliver.com ~~~ On Apr 23, 2004, at 21:54, Mark Johnson wrote: latest '14x' processor. Boy, I wish I knew what those speeds of those older systems were in today's terms. 2x, 7x, 14x...What's an 'x'? IIRC, the -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
A bit of history here. I'm sure that these high user counts all participate with telnet connections. Back in the day, I believe circa 1983-5, Ted Sabarese, president of Ultimate, illustrated one of the highest number of connected *serial* terminals on one system. It was an interesting photograph as he lined up 1,000 dumb terminals on the bleachers at a local high school and had them all BLOCK-PRINTing something like their port number. I don't exactly remember the machine's specs, but given the Microdatas of that time it probably had 260MB disc drive, 8 MB of 'core' memory and the latest '14x' processor. Boy, I wish I knew what those speeds of those older systems were in today's terms. 2x, 7x, 14x...What's an 'x'? IIRC, the original IBM-PC was 4.7Mhz. My 4.7 cents. - Original Message - From: "Ross Ferris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:32 PM Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? I would imagine in any of the scenarios that has been given, if some form of "local" (client side) intelligence is employed, coupled with a non-persistent connection scheme to the central database, that the numbers that have been quoted here (2-10,000) could easily be multiplied by a factor of 5-10 . but of course you may hit the wall in terms of saleability of web servers (web farms), network topology & infrastructure etc. I think it would be fair to say, within the parameters that others have outlined (massively large databases vs. massively large user populations) that there are no practical limits to mv scalability. I recall hearing a story about when Tim Holland migrated Pick Open Architecture to the Sequoia machine. Similar concerns were raised about the saleability of "pick", but it soon became obvious that it was the underlying Unix that would be "pushed" Given the historic position that mv allows you to do more with less, I don't think we should be too surprised by this. Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Ray Wurlod >Sent: Saturday, 24 April 2004 9:05 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? > >There are quite a few sites running upwards of 2000 users in my region >(Asia Pacific). The model is many small users (such as insurance brokers, >accountants, tax agents, etc.) having dial-in access. One site is licensed >for 3300 users, and sustains a load over 3000 users most of the day with >acceptable response metrics. Strictly two tier (one tier really). > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 -- 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: How far can U2 scale?
I would imagine in any of the scenarios that has been given, if some form of "local" (client side) intelligence is employed, coupled with a non-persistent connection scheme to the central database, that the numbers that have been quoted here (2-10,000) could easily be multiplied by a factor of 5-10 . but of course you may hit the wall in terms of saleability of web servers (web farms), network topology & infrastructure etc. I think it would be fair to say, within the parameters that others have outlined (massively large databases vs. massively large user populations) that there are no practical limits to mv scalability. I recall hearing a story about when Tim Holland migrated Pick Open Architecture to the Sequoia machine. Similar concerns were raised about the saleability of "pick", but it soon became obvious that it was the underlying Unix that would be "pushed" Given the historic position that mv allows you to do more with less, I don't think we should be too surprised by this. Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage – an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Ray Wurlod >Sent: Saturday, 24 April 2004 9:05 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: RE: How far can U2 scale? > >There are quite a few sites running upwards of 2000 users in my region >(Asia Pacific). The model is many small users (such as insurance brokers, >accountants, tax agents, etc.) having dial-in access. One site is licensed >for 3300 users, and sustains a load over 3000 users most of the day with >acceptable response metrics. Strictly two tier (one tier really). > >-- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
There are quite a few sites running upwards of 2000 users in my region (Asia Pacific). The model is many small users (such as insurance brokers, accountants, tax agents, etc.) having dial-in access. One site is licensed for 3300 users, and sustains a load over 3000 users most of the day with acceptable response metrics. Strictly two tier (one tier really). -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
Design plays a big role. Some banks have massive systems, because all the customer data is in one spot even though customers are spread over several cities and states. To me if you live in City A you conduct most of your transactions in city A and occasionaly on business or holiday you may do business in City B which can be done through a remote procedure. Instead of one big mainframe, why noy have several smaller regional centers. In this area, I am interested in the performance of UvNet, Distributed Files and Remote Procedure calls to handle scalability. Has anyone had experience in this area. Regards David Jordan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis Sent: Friday, 23 April 2004 11:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How far can U2 scale? At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their products as scaling the best. So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- 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: How far can U2 scale?
Interesting subject! I think I'm in Brian's camp on this one -- scalability is most dependent on application system and its architecture -- of which the database system is a critical component. I'm wondering where n-tier applications fit into this discussion. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the architecture of most MV applications is at best a 2-tier design... and the client tier tends to be very thin. With such a design, it seems reasonable to say that for a well designed 2-tier application, the performance characteristics and capability of the database system to use available hardware resources are significant factors. What little bit I know about n-tier architecture tells me the database system is a scalability factor, but the addition of other components in the application needed to coordinate application functionality across the various tiers plays a HUGE role. Well designed applications that can scale by adding systems seems like a powerful notion. But, just like the 2-tier application, scalability is still dependent on the capability of the overall application design (including its third-party components) and its capable to use the available hardware resources. N-tier seems like scalability Nirvana to me -- though very difficult to achieve. Are there highly scalable n-tier applications using Universe, Unidata, jBASE, etc? Tom Firl Columbia Ultimate > -Original Message- > From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How far can U2 scale? > > > At what point in the life of application software would it be > so large that > you could not (or would not want to) support it with your > existing UniData > or UniVerse database? > > Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or > Oracle, for > example due to the scale you are working with? > > I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do > ODBC and use > standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not > greener for > those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of > running into > scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing > small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their > products as scaling the best. > > So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn > > Dawn M. Wolthuis > Tincat Group, Inc. > www.tincat-group.com > > Take and give some delight today. > > > > -- > 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: How far can U2 scale?
So, David, care to share, from a high level, what those issues you found were and how they were addressed/resolved? ;^)> As long as a U2 application is designed to scale, it should scale fairly well. Many of those applications that started serving smaller numbers of users, if & when such applications outgrew their "PICK platform or origin roots", had many adjustments made over time as their applications were ported to various other larger multi-user platforms, including Primes, using Prime Information, and VMark UniVerse, and UniData, over various UNIX Symmetric Multi Processor platforms, (Encore MultiMax, Sequent, Sequoia Fault Tolerant platforms, DG AVIONS, and a number of others). As long as bottlenecks are properley identified, addressed and maximized, (hw, or sw), then anything is nearly possible. If your platform isn't scaling as it should, for whatever reason, then perhaps I could be of service? - Original Message - From: "David T. Meeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:03 AM Subject: Re: How far can U2 scale? > Purely anecdotal, mind you, but here's a quick story... > ...% > > We quickly identified a couple of issues, resolved those, and before the > end of the evening, they were running 10,000 concurrent users, blowing > away their prior expectations. > > Even the IBM folks were pretty amazed when we told them that we were > running 10,000 concurrent users. > ...% > > At 08:50 AM 4/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: > >At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that > >you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData > >or UniVerse database? > > > >Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for > >example due to the scale you are working with? > > > >I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use > >standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for > >those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into > >scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing > >small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their > >products as scaling the best. > > > >So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn > > > >Dawn M. Wolthuis > >Tincat Group, Inc. > >www.tincat-group.com > > > >Take and give some delight today. > > > > > > > >-- > >u2-users mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > > David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by surprise > Architect, Technology Office || I'm someone's waste of time > Ascential Software || Now I walk a balanced line > [EMAIL PROTECTED] || and step into tomorrow" - IQ > > -- > 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: How far can U2 scale?
Dear Dawn et al. From reading other posts on this matter about UV/UD scaling, I expect that as far as the PRDBMS and hardware, the sky is the limit. And with Claus Derlien's comment about 3 users at France Telecom, the sky is pretty high up there. But I wonder about the applications. I know that the LIS that I was supporting until recently used a single place to get a transaction number. Now when you have 100 users, locking/reading/writing that single record was not a big deal. But if you had 1000 users? I think that you would start having problems. So I suspect that the scaling problems are not at the UV/UD and hardware layers but within the applications. Control Record locking. The transaction Number generation that I referred to earlier. Things like that. I believe that as the user counts got bigger, the application would have to be checked on to see where it would need to be modified to match the greater number of users than was imagined when the application was written. Steve At 08:50 AM 4/23/04 -0500, you wrote: At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their products as scaling the best. So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Steven M Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cary, North Carolina, United States of America -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
Dawn, Looking at this from outside, I would suggest that session persistence creates the overheads, so if you are running a traditional application that needs to maintain a single session per user (e.g a green screen or UniOjects application) you are probably limited to several thousand users on current hardware. There are a number of sites over here that run those sort of numbers. If you adopt a 'pure database' model (i.e. not an embedded database running the application) a la SQL Server or Oracle, where you are just farming data in response to requests or calling atomic stored procedures, and using some form of responder architecture, I cannot see why there should be any real scaling limits. After all, we run hundreds of users through RedBack on hardware that is not particularly massy or fast. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis Sent: 23 April 2004 14:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How far can U2 scale? At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their products as scaling the best. So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- 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
RE: How far can U2 scale?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn M. Wolthuis > At what point in the life of application software would it be > so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it > with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? > > Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or > Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? > > I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do > ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the > grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear > about switching because of running into scaling issues. > However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing > small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think > of their products as scaling the best. > > So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn > > Dawn M. Wolthuis > Tincat Group, Inc. Dawn, Maybe there is a theoretical limit but I've yet to see it reached and don't really know where it is. I've been involved with UD/UV systems with thousand of simultaneous users. Sometimes we had to get creative when there were time constraints for jobs (multi-threading and/or distributed processing) but I've not seen a situation that could not be handle by our beloved multi-valued systems. My US$0.02, Gordon Gordon J. Glorfield Sr. Applications Developer MAMSI (A UnitedHealth Company) 301-360-8839 This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
Over 6000 users across 700 sites. Universe HP superdome. £1.5 billion turnover. Uniobects used for VB apps. Loads of greens. Lots of happy user. Not bad for a UK company. Les. -Original Message- From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 April 2004 14:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How far can U2 scale? At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their products as scaling the best. So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose the contents; please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of Travis Perkins plc or its subsidiaries (Travis Perkins). Agreements binding Travis Perkins may not be concluded by means of e-mail communication. E-mail transmissions are not secure and Travis Perkins accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst steps have been taken to ensure that this message is virus free, Travis Perkins accepts no liability for infection and recommends that you scan this e-mail and any attachments. Part of Travis Perkins plc. Registered Office: Lodge Way House, Lodge Way, Harlestone Road, Northampton, NN5 7UG. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: How far can U2 scale?
Purely anecdotal, mind you, but here's a quick story... A number of years back, a major VAR of ours (UV) was running into competitive FUD against a competitor. The competitor used to use UV, but moved to Progress in order to have a 'modern' database (cough, hack, blech,. WHAT?). Anyway, that competitor went to the IBM performance center, set up a particular configuration, and was able to get something like 2-3000 concurrent, simulated users running some end-of-quarter processing. (Note that the configuration was pretty huge) We were called to see what we could do. The VAR put together his equivalent simulation with their software, we went to the performance center, and initially were only getting about 1500 concurrent users. They were hoping for 3-4000, and if they could get to 5000, they felt they could trumpet it as a success story. We quickly identified a couple of issues, resolved those, and before the end of the evening, they were running 10,000 concurrent users, blowing away their prior expectations. Even the IBM folks were pretty amazed when we told them that we were running 10,000 concurrent users. So... what's the top end scalability? Hard to say, really. I would actually say that the U2 products scale exceptionally well in regards to number of users. They scale pretty well in an environment with exceptionally large 'virtual' database setups. Where they tend to get beat is on queries against single massive tables/files. So, if you are expecting to run databases with terabytes of data spread out across hundreds/thousands of tables, or need thousands of users, I think UV scales very well. If you need a fewer number of users churning against a set of massively large tables, UV doesn't scale as well. Dave At 08:50 AM 4/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their products as scaling the best. So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by surprise Architect, Technology Office || I'm someone's waste of time Ascential Software || Now I walk a balanced line [EMAIL PROTECTED] || and step into tomorrow" - IQ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
Across 3 systems, 7,500(ish) on-line Users, have benchmarked to 20,000+ Users. Spooler struggles and we have re-written parts of it. -Original Message- From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 April 2004 14:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How far can U2 scale? At what point in the life of application software would it be so large that you could not (or would not want to) support it with your existing UniData or UniVerse database? Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or Oracle, for example due to the scale you are working with? I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do ODBC and use standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not greener for those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of running into scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their products as scaling the best. So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. www.tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose the contents; please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of Travis Perkins plc or its subsidiaries (Travis Perkins). Agreements binding Travis Perkins may not be concluded by means of e-mail communication. E-mail transmissions are not secure and Travis Perkins accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst steps have been taken to ensure that this message is virus free, Travis Perkins accepts no liability for infection and recommends that you scan this e-mail and any attachments. Part of Travis Perkins plc. Registered Office: Lodge Way House, Lodge Way, Harlestone Road, Northampton, NN5 7UG. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: How far can U2 scale?
afaik france telecom has 3 users online on a universe/unidata system and i also think there is a hp superdome running 3000 users in gb looks like its scalable to me :-) Claus Derlien edb-afdelingen direkte : 63 13 86 69 email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 3:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How far can U2 scale? > > > At what point in the life of application software would it be > so large that > you could not (or would not want to) support it with your > existing UniData > or UniVerse database? > > Is there a point where you would be better served by DB2 or > Oracle, for > example due to the scale you are working with? > > I hear people talk about moving way from U2 in order to do > ODBC and use > standard industry tools (and most find that the grass is not > greener for > those purposes), but I don't hear about switching because of > running into > scaling issues. However, we sometimes think of PICK as addressing > small-to-mid size businesses and RDBMS folks sometimes think of their > products as scaling the best. > > So, what's the cut-off for U2? Thanks. --dawn > > Dawn M. Wolthuis > Tincat Group, Inc. > www.tincat-group.com > > Take and give some delight today. > > > > -- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > ** > ** > Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com > ** > ** > Frie Funktionærer - faglig organisation og tværfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk *** Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. *** This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
