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

Reply via email to