10080 conversion

Yahoo Archive
1
When the 904 admin tools conversion process is complete it will return back to the admin tools dialog box. At that point, click the conversion programs button and scroll down to 10080 and selection actions/run program.

Enter your company ID and date range and click OK.

Ross

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "urlacherfactor" <askrepak@...> wrote:
>
> I feel like a dummy here, but how are you running the 10080 against the 9.04 database? We are going from 8.03.410 to 9.05.702 using the DUU. When I open the DUU 9.04 admin tools after converting to 9.04.500, the options are blank. When I restore the 9.04 database into the 905 slot and try to run the admin tools before changing the schema, it tells me that the database is not the 9.05 schema. I have to be missing something here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you!
>
> -Austin
2
I'm running the DUU from Vantage 8.03.410 to Epicor 9.05.702. When I started converting and testing Epicor 9, I started off running the 10080 conversion on the 9.05.database (following Epicor instructions), it took days to get the conversions thru that way. Following advice from this group, I started running the 10080 conversion on the 9.04 database before starting 9.05 schema changes and conversions. It finished in 3-6 hours (6 hours on an old server), even running all the data in one batch! :) Since Epicor instructions have had changes made to them I decided to do my latest conversion running the 10080 conversions after the 9.05 conversions as the instructions suggest. It's been a nightmare...I kept getting the "Could not create buffer object for table mfgsysMT.APInvExp. (7334)" errors. I tried the suggestions from the Epicor tech when I had the same problem last year, I tried the user group suggestions. I'm Progress 32-bit and processing directly on the server; the last discussion with that error only affected the SQL versions. I've got it running now, but it looks like it's going to take almost as long to run thru 1 year running the conversion thru the 905 database as it did to run all the years at once thru the 904 database. I'm looking for verification that the 10080 conversion results are the same regardless if they are run on the 904 or 905 database. It appears the main reason for running a year at a time on the 905 version are time constraints on cutover weekend. Our database is relatively small, if I can get all of the 10080 conversions done fairly easily on cutover weekend between the 904 and 905 conversions is there any reason I shouldn't do that?

Thanks!

Sue
3
Hi Sue,

You are right on track.

If you can do them in 904 in decent time, just do them at this stage.

In a SQL environment the 10080 process is much slower. I have one instance in Progress where 8 years runs in 5 hours. A SQL instance of similar annual transactions, but 4 years, runs in 40. The SQL instance would be a show stopper for the weekend cutover.

Part of the conversions in 905 delete the transaction data from the database, hence the need to reach back in to the 904 database to extract this history to build the TranGLC table.

So, just do it in 904 be done with it. That is what we are doing.

HTH,
Ross


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@...> wrote:
>
> I'm running the DUU from Vantage 8.03.410 to Epicor 9.05.702. When I started converting and testing Epicor 9, I started off running the 10080 conversion on the 9.05.database (following Epicor instructions), it took days to get the conversions thru that way. Following advice from this group, I started running the 10080 conversion on the 9.04 database before starting 9.05 schema changes and conversions. It finished in 3-6 hours (6 hours on an old server), even running all the data in one batch! :) Since Epicor instructions have had changes made to them I decided to do my latest conversion running the 10080 conversions after the 9.05 conversions as the instructions suggest. It's been a nightmare...I kept getting the "Could not create buffer object for table mfgsysMT.APInvExp. (7334)" errors. I tried the suggestions from the Epicor tech when I had the same problem last year, I tried the user group suggestions. I'm Progress 32-bit and processing directly on the server; the last discussion with that error only affected the SQL versions. I've got it running now, but it looks like it's going to take almost as long to run thru 1 year running the conversion thru the 905 database as it did to run all the years at once thru the 904 database. I'm looking for verification that the 10080 conversion results are the same regardless if they are run on the 904 or 905 database. It appears the main reason for running a year at a time on the 905 version are time constraints on cutover weekend. Our database is relatively small, if I can get all of the 10080 conversions done fairly easily on cutover weekend between the 904 and 905 conversions is there any reason I shouldn't do that?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sue
>
4
Thanks Ross! Now I can go back to running 10080 between 904 and 905 conversions and save not just hours, but days. It makes perfect sense that the 10080 on the 904 db would be faster, running 10080 on the 905 db involves going back and forth between 2 databases. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't using a shortcut that would bite me later!

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "rossh777" <ross.hughes3@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Sue,
>
> You are right on track.
>
> If you can do them in 904 in decent time, just do them at this stage.
>
> In a SQL environment the 10080 process is much slower. I have one instance in Progress where 8 years runs in 5 hours. A SQL instance of similar annual transactions, but 4 years, runs in 40. The SQL instance would be a show stopper for the weekend cutover.
>
> Part of the conversions in 905 delete the transaction data from the database, hence the need to reach back in to the 904 database to extract this history to build the TranGLC table.
>
> So, just do it in 904 be done with it. That is what we are doing.
>
> HTH,
> Ross
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm running the DUU from Vantage 8.03.410 to Epicor 9.05.702. When I started converting and testing Epicor 9, I started off running the 10080 conversion on the 9.05.database (following Epicor instructions), it took days to get the conversions thru that way. Following advice from this group, I started running the 10080 conversion on the 9.04 database before starting 9.05 schema changes and conversions. It finished in 3-6 hours (6 hours on an old server), even running all the data in one batch! :) Since Epicor instructions have had changes made to them I decided to do my latest conversion running the 10080 conversions after the 9.05 conversions as the instructions suggest. It's been a nightmare...I kept getting the "Could not create buffer object for table mfgsysMT.APInvExp. (7334)" errors. I tried the suggestions from the Epicor tech when I had the same problem last year, I tried the user group suggestions. I'm Progress 32-bit and processing directly on the server; the last discussion with that error only affected the SQL versions. I've got it running now, but it looks like it's going to take almost as long to run thru 1 year running the conversion thru the 905 database as it did to run all the years at once thru the 904 database. I'm looking for verification that the 10080 conversion results are the same regardless if they are run on the 904 or 905 database. It appears the main reason for running a year at a time on the 905 version are time constraints on cutover weekend. Our database is relatively small, if I can get all of the 10080 conversions done fairly easily on cutover weekend between the 904 and 905 conversions is there any reason I shouldn't do that?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Sue
> >
>
5
I feel like a dummy here, but how are you running the 10080 against the 9.04 database? We are going from 8.03.410 to 9.05.702 using the DUU. When I open the DUU 9.04 admin tools after converting to 9.04.500, the options are blank. When I restore the 9.04 database into the 905 slot and try to run the admin tools before changing the schema, it tells me that the database is not the 9.05 schema. I have to be missing something here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

-Austin

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ross! Now I can go back to running 10080 between 904 and 905 conversions and save not just hours, but days. It makes perfect sense that the 10080 on the 904 db would be faster, running 10080 on the 905 db involves going back and forth between 2 databases. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't using a shortcut that would bite me later!
>
> Sue
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "rossh777" <ross.hughes3@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Sue,
> >
> > You are right on track.
> >
> > If you can do them in 904 in decent time, just do them at this stage.
> >
> > In a SQL environment the 10080 process is much slower. I have one instance in Progress where 8 years runs in 5 hours. A SQL instance of similar annual transactions, but 4 years, runs in 40. The SQL instance would be a show stopper for the weekend cutover.
> >
> > Part of the conversions in 905 delete the transaction data from the database, hence the need to reach back in to the 904 database to extract this history to build the TranGLC table.
> >
> > So, just do it in 904 be done with it. That is what we are doing.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Ross
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm running the DUU from Vantage 8.03.410 to Epicor 9.05.702. When I started converting and testing Epicor 9, I started off running the 10080 conversion on the 9.05.database (following Epicor instructions), it took days to get the conversions thru that way. Following advice from this group, I started running the 10080 conversion on the 9.04 database before starting 9.05 schema changes and conversions. It finished in 3-6 hours (6 hours on an old server), even running all the data in one batch! :) Since Epicor instructions have had changes made to them I decided to do my latest conversion running the 10080 conversions after the 9.05 conversions as the instructions suggest. It's been a nightmare...I kept getting the "Could not create buffer object for table mfgsysMT.APInvExp. (7334)" errors. I tried the suggestions from the Epicor tech when I had the same problem last year, I tried the user group suggestions. I'm Progress 32-bit and processing directly on the server; the last discussion with that error only affected the SQL versions. I've got it running now, but it looks like it's going to take almost as long to run thru 1 year running the conversion thru the 905 database as it did to run all the years at once thru the 904 database. I'm looking for verification that the 10080 conversion results are the same regardless if they are run on the 904 or 905 database. It appears the main reason for running a year at a time on the 905 version are time constraints on cutover weekend. Our database is relatively small, if I can get all of the 10080 conversions done fairly easily on cutover weekend between the 904 and 905 conversions is there any reason I shouldn't do that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Sue
> > >
> >
>