9.05.702A SQL - 10.1.500.7 Conversion Stats

Epicor ERP 10
, , ,
1

Did another 500.7 conversion yesterday @Bart_Elia
Initial DB Size: 121851.00 MB
Post Conversion DB Size: 60469.88 MB

Gained right about half of the DB size which is really nice!

Total Conversion Time: 157.2079 Minutes ConversionLog.txt (264.7 KB) for your perusing pleasure

Source SQL Box: 8 G RAM, Intel Xeon E5440 (unsure of drives specs)
Target SQL Box: 48GB Ram, Intel Xeon E5-2690 (2 processors), HP SCSI Drives unsure of the speed / spec
App Server Box: 32 GB Ram, Intel Xeon E5-2640 (2 Processors), HP SCSI Drives unsure of the speed / spec

2

Was the E905 database SQL ISO or SQL Unicode (you know, for science)?

3

and the survey sayyyyyyyysss… Non Unicode

4

seems like there wasn’t heavy use of UD fields in E905 based on the 13 seconds of processing under the UDFieldMigration phase (13 seconds is really fast for this phase) - not bring over all of the unused but predefined UD fields from earlier versions into E10.x has been a huge benefit to DB sizes.

Pasted image983Ă—440 10.3 KB

5

Yeah these folks are mostly vanilla. They have 10 BPms and like 3 customizations.

6

I am doing a E9.702A Progress to E10.1.500.7 Migration. Will post my stats.

1 Like
7

We have started migration 9.05.70 - 9.05.702A-10.1.500 - SQL Unicode. I will post our stats when we are done.

1 Like
8

@kfierce How did your 10.1.500.x migration go?

9

@aidacra - it went well. we had one issue where we had an error of insufficient memory in resource poo. Once we changed the max server memory to use 8GB less than what is installed on the server the migration completed successfully. We knew we would have errors in BAQ/Dashboards and customization’s so no surprise there. We are currently finishing up verifying customization’s that didn’t validate and I am working on a few Crystal reports updates to RDDs - we will continue to use Crystal reports for already existing customized reports from E9 and then move them to SSRS as needed.

Migration took approximately 5 hrs to complete.

Kristine Fierce

1 Like
10

glad to hear that it was successful and that the migration process itself took less than a day; great feedback. Was the resultant 10.1.500.x database smaller than the starting E9.05.702a database?