E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

system · February 22, 2013, 3:38pm

Sorry for the foolish question but where can I find this tool ?

Thanks,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...> wrote:
>
> I see, i have asked for help from our network engineer and hopefully he will find something that can address this. Are all your clients currently on a GB network? I am no expert in networking, but i am trying to determine what could possibly be wrong.
>
> Cheers,
> -Mike
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> >
> > short answer is , yes -
> > server performance may be high because of bad network performance, as server is waiting for client's next commands
> > motty
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Greetings all, I understand this thread is a few months old and don't necessarily expect a response. I am getting a consistent Server: .25 and Network ~ .8-1.2.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have an open support call on this, but that being said, could performance be noticeably hindered with those stats?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > motty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog <http://usdoingstuff.com/>. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com <http://www.usdoingstuff.com/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

system · February 22, 2013, 3:41pm

Here:

https://epicweb.epicor.com/Support/epicor9/downloads/Performance%20Diagnostic%20Tool/E9%20Performance%20Diagnostic%20Tool.zip.aspx

You will need to have an Epicor account to download it though.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the foolish question but where can I find this tool ?
>
> Thanks,
> Neil
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> >
> > I see, i have asked for help from our network engineer and hopefully he will find something that can address this. Are all your clients currently on a GB network? I am no expert in networking, but i am trying to determine what could possibly be wrong.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Mike
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > >
> > > short answer is , yes -
> > > server performance may be high because of bad network performance, as server is waiting for client's next commands
> > > motty
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greetings all, I understand this thread is a few months old and don't necessarily expect a response. I am getting a consistent Server: .25 and Network ~ .8-1.2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have an open support call on this, but that being said, could performance be noticeably hindered with those stats?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > -Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > motty
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog <http://usdoingstuff.com/>. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com <http://www.usdoingstuff.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

system · February 27, 2013, 3:53pm

Thanks,

Got it downloaded and running.

Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...> wrote:
>
> Here:
>
> https://epicweb.epicor.com/Support/epicor9/downloads/Performance%20Diagnostic%20Tool/E9%20Performance%20Diagnostic%20Tool.zip.aspx
>
> You will need to have an Epicor account to download it though.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the foolish question but where can I find this tool ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Neil
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I see, i have asked for help from our network engineer and hopefully he will find something that can address this. Are all your clients currently on a GB network? I am no expert in networking, but i am trying to determine what could possibly be wrong.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > short answer is , yes -
> > > > server performance may be high because of bad network performance, as server is waiting for client's next commands
> > > > motty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Greetings all, I understand this thread is a few months old and don't necessarily expect a response. I am getting a consistent Server: .25 and Network ~ .8-1.2.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have an open support call on this, but that being said, could performance be noticeably hindered with those stats?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > -Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > > motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog <http://usdoingstuff.com/>. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com <http://www.usdoingstuff.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

system · March 1, 2013, 10:56am

Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:

Production:
Server .60
Network .38

Test:
Server .58
Network .37

Thanks.

Tim Lester

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@...> wrote:
>
> before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> motty
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> >
> > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > >
> > >
> > > Motty
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jgiese1988" <epicor-team@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We get something like
> > > > .13 server
> > > > .48 network
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mseal" <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > Network - .33
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > >
> > > > > Motty
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > start.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog <http://usdoingstuff.com/>. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com <http://www.usdoingstuff.com/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal <mseal@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

system · March 1, 2013, 11:01am

Best thing I ever did...

Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array

Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.

Â

All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÂ hard drive bottleneck.Â It was a vicious circle.Â I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.Â It helped marginally.

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "timlester67" <tlester@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

Â

Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:

Production:
Server .60
Network .38

Test:
Server .58
Network .37

Thanks.

Tim Lester

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
>
> before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> motty
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> >
> > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > >
> > >
> > > Motty
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We get something like
> > > > .13 server
> > > > .48 network
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > Network - .33
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > >
> > > > > Motty
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > start.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 1, 2013, 2:49pm

I'm with Joshua.
The idea that splitting your app/db servers improves performance has become
accepted wisdom. It may have been true at one point, but these days
drives/chips/etc are so much faster than the network that you're usually
just introducing a bottleneck. In most cases I've seen, the money for a
second server would be better spent improving the storage of the first
server.

*John Driggers*
**
*Chief Data Wrangler*
*
*
*I have an Epicor blog <http://usdoingstuff.com/>. How useful is that?*
*
*:: 904.404.9233
:: waffqle@...
:: http://www.usdoingstuff.com <http://www.usdoingstuff.com/>

*

*

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Joshua Giese <
jgiese@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Best thing I ever did...
>
> Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
>
> Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
>
>
>
> All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and
> Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for
> SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor
> because I had a hard drive bottleneck. It was a vicious circle. I put a
> crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet
> and took the switch out of the equation. It helped marginally.
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "timlester67" tlester@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our
> server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1
> SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
>
> Production:
> Server .60
> Network .38
>
> Test:
> Server .58
> Network .37
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim Lester
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> >
> > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but
> 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > motty
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before
> correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting
> the issue.
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM
> to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the
> DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old
> but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS
> power profile configuration
> > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it
> seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Motty
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We get something like
> > > > > .13 server
> > > > > .48 network
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really
> long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place
> as any to
> > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful
> is that?*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of
> the `Network
> > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and
> client
> > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I
> could assess how
> > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 1, 2013, 6:27pm

In the last few months we've run it on several different configs, and we are seeing the performance gains from the scenario Josh described as well...

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-4832
FAX: (715)284-4084

(Click the logo to view our site)

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Driggers
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 1:49 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

I'm with Joshua.
The idea that splitting your app/db servers improves performance has become accepted wisdom. It may have been true at one point, but these days drives/chips/etc are so much faster than the network that you're usually just introducing a bottleneck. In most cases I've seen, the money for a second server would be better spent improving the storage of the first server.

*John Driggers*
**
*Chief Data Wrangler*
*
*
*I have an Epicor blog <http://usdoingstuff.com/>. How useful is that?*
*
*:: 904.404.9233
:: waffqle@...
:: http://www.usdoingstuff.com <http://www.usdoingstuff.com/>

*

*

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Joshua Giese < jgiese@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Best thing I ever did...
>
> Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
>
> Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
>
>
>
> All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and
> Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting
> for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from
> Epicor because I had a hard drive bottleneck. It was a vicious
> circle. I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two
> NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation. It helped marginally.
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "timlester67" tlester@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our
> server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server
> and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
>
> Production:
> Server .60
> Network .38
>
> Test:
> Server .58
> Network .37
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim Lester
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> >
> > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20)
> > but
> 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > motty
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade
> > > before
> correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after
> correcting the issue.
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on
> > > > VM
> to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of
> the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as
> > > > old
> but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was
> > > > BIOS
> power profile configuration
> > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it
> seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Motty
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We get something like
> > > > > .13 server
> > > > > .48 network
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have
> > > > > really
> long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a
> > > > > > > place
> as any to
> > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How
> > > > > > > useful
> is that?*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com
> > > > > > > http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats
> > > > > > > > of
> the `Network
> > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB
> > > > > > > > and
> client
> > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I
> could assess how
> > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links

system · March 6, 2013, 5:13pm

Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Best thing I ever did...
>
> Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
>
> Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
>
> Ã‚Â
>
> All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃ‚Â hard drive bottleneck.Ã‚Â It was a vicious circle.Ã‚Â I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.Ã‚Â It helped marginally.
>
>
>
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "timlester67" <tlester@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
> Ã‚Â
>
>
> Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
>
> Production:
> Server .60
> Network .38
>
> Test:
> Server .58
> Network .37
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim Lester
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> >
> > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > motty
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Motty
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We get something like
> > > > > .13 server
> > > > > .48 network
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

system · March 6, 2013, 6:11pm

We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
- Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
- BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
- BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
- Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)

One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
>
>
>
> Best thing I ever did...
>
> Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
>
> Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
>
> Ã‚
>
> All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃ‚ hard drive bottleneck.Ã‚ It was a vicious circle.Ã‚ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.Ã‚ It helped marginally.
>
>
>
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "timlester67"
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
> Ã‚
>
>
> Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
>
> Production:
> Server .60
> Network .38
>
> Test:
> Server .58
> Network .37
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim Lester
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> >
> > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > motty
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Motty
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We get something like
> > > > > .13 server
> > > > > .48 network
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 14, 2013, 9:47am

We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C

Server Network

Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31

Why is this double ? ^^^

Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?

We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.

Thanks,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
>
> We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
>
> One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Best thing I ever did...
> >
> > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> >
> > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> >
> > ÃƒÂ‚
> >
> > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂ‚ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂ‚ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂ‚ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂ‚ It helped marginally.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "timlester67"
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> > ÃƒÂ‚
> >
> >
> > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> >
> > Production:
> > Server .60
> > Network .38
> >
> > Test:
> > Server .58
> > Network .37
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Tim Lester
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > >
> > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > motty
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Motty
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

system · March 14, 2013, 10:00am

Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C

Server Network

Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31

Why is this double ? ^^^

Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?

We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.

Thanks,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
>
> We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
>
> One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Best thing I ever did...
> >
> > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> >
> > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> >
> > Ãƒâ€š
> >
> > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒâ€š hard drive bottleneck.Ãƒâ€š It was a vicious circle.Ãƒâ€š I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.Ãƒâ€š It helped marginally.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "timlester67"
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> > Ãƒâ€š
> >
> >
> > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> >
> > Production:
> > Server .60
> > Network .38
> >
> > Test:
> > Server .58
> > Network .37
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Tim Lester
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > >
> > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > motty
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Motty
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 14, 2013, 1:03pm

Joshua,

Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.

My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)

Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
>
> Server Network
>
> Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
>
> Why is this double ? ^^^
>
> Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
>
> We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
>
> Thanks,
> Neil
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> >
> > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best thing I ever did...
> > >
> > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > >
> > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > >
> > > ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Âš
> > >
> > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Âš hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Âš It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Âš I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Âš It helped marginally.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "timlester67"
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > > ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Âš
> > >
> > >
> > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > >
> > > Production:
> > > Server .60
> > > Network .38
> > >
> > > Test:
> > > Server .58
> > > Network .37
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Tim Lester
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > motty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

system · March 15, 2013, 10:18am

Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?

reply Signature

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

Joshua,

Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.

My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)

Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
>
> Server Network
>
> Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
>
> Why is this double ? ^^^
>
> Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
>
> We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
>
> Thanks,
> Neil
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> >
> > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best thing I ever did...
> > >
> > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > >
> > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > >
> > > ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > >
> > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It helped marginally.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "timlester67"
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > > ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > >
> > >
> > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > >
> > > Production:
> > > Server .60
> > > Network .38
> > >
> > > Test:
> > > Server .58
> > > Network .37
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Tim Lester
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > motty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 15, 2013, 6:51pm

We are moving from a green screen environment to E9, so speed is a huge issue for us I agree there is no smoking gun, but lots of little things to check that may or may not have an impact on your config.

I did the power saving guide and I felt that made a big difference. I posted the guide which are bios or windows changes to the file section under performance tuning.

Our servers were the recommended config at the time 15K spindle speed with 10 drives in a raid 10 array. It is good, but probably going to want to do SSD one day. We use 4 Gig Ethernet ports teamed to make a 4 Gig connection between the app and sql server and the app server and clients.

I got a â€“B value of 200000 from support in addition to â€“Bt 40960 and that seemed to make reports faster. I also got document 10227MPS from support on printing speed and it seemed to help

Server network speed is important. I learned how much last week when an update to the NIC driver went south and I got network times above 10 seconds.

Client network speed and ram makes a huge difference. We added all gigabit switches for clients and 2GB or more of ram.
Memory and lots of it. SQL with 48GB is good, but I am looking to add another 48.

BPMs can make a huge difference. I wrote a simple update on jobs that changed one field originally, but found that jobentry.update is called at almost every turn in MES, so the system was crawling thru that code every time.

Set logs to error only, donâ€™t do too many BAMS, run the SQL scripts for indexing.

Hope some of this may help.

Good Luck

Greg Payne

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joshua Giese
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:19 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?

reply Signature

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...<mailto:neil_willet%40lesueurinc.com>>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

Joshua,

Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.

My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)

Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , Joshua Giese <jgiese@...<mailto:jgiese@...>> wrote:
>
> Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...<mailto:neil_willet@...>>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
>
> Server Network
>
> Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
>
> Why is this double ? ^^^
>
> Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
>
> We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
>
> Thanks,
> Neil
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> >
> > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best thing I ever did...
> > >
> > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > >
> > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > >
> > > ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > >
> > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It helped marginally.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "timlester67"
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > > ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > >
> > >
> > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > >
> > > Production:
> > > Server .60
> > > Network .38
> > >
> > > Test:
> > > Server .58
> > > Network .37
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Tim Lester
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "mseal" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > motty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this communication, including attachments, is privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at 727-578-6280 and immediately delete the communication.

"This (document/presentation) may contain technical data as defined in the International Traffic In Arms Regulations (ITAR) 22 CFR 120.10. Export of this material is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) and may not be exported to foreign persons without prior approval form the U.S. Department of State."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 18, 2013, 11:40am

I am running in VMware with a Fiber Channel SAN back end.

HP DL380 G8 Host Servers, plenty of horsepower and RAM.

I have a virtual copy of my current physical V8 Server and that actually outperforms the physical server (slightly).

I have this E9 VM running on the same Host and get the results listed below. That is why I am wondering about configuration tweaks vs expected results.

Is E9 just slower ?

This is not apples to apples because my V8 Server OS is 2003 X64 and SQL 2005 .... my E9 Server OS is 2008 R2 X64 and SQL 2008.

I would really like to get the same numbers as my virtual V8 box.

In the diagnostic tool the Network numbers are similar but the server number is roughly double. Trying to put my finger on that part.

I am open to suggestions for things to check or tweak.

Thanks for the help,
Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?
>
> reply Signature
>
>
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
>
>
>
> Joshua,
>
> Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.
>
> My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)
>
> Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Neil
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> >
> > Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> >
> >
> > We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
> >
> > Server Network
> >
> > Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> > Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> > Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
> >
> > Why is this double ? ^^^
> >
> > Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
> >
> > We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Neil
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > >
> > > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best thing I ever did...
> > > >
> > > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > > >
> > > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > > >
> > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > >
> > > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It helped marginally.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: "timlester67"
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > >
> > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > > >
> > > > Production:
> > > > Server .60
> > > > Network .38
> > > >
> > > > Test:
> > > > Server .58
> > > > Network .37
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Tim Lester
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > motty
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

system · March 20, 2013, 3:22pm

Neil,

It was stated in one of the Epicor best practices documents, but restarting the three appservers via a batch job every night significantly improved our network time (not too sure how). We went from around .08-1.2 to .45 on Win7 clients and .65 on WinXP. Is that something you have implemented?

By the way, the numbers you are seeing are very good and not something I would think you need to worry about. The tool does state that on a LAN network time should be below .4 which you are. I hope to be able to get down to where you are eventually. Curious, have you run the tool on your clients at all?

Thanks,
-Mike

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@...> wrote:
>
> I am running in VMware with a Fiber Channel SAN back end.
>
> HP DL380 G8 Host Servers, plenty of horsepower and RAM.
>
> I have a virtual copy of my current physical V8 Server and that actually outperforms the physical server (slightly).
>
> I have this E9 VM running on the same Host and get the results listed below. That is why I am wondering about configuration tweaks vs expected results.
>
> Is E9 just slower ?
>
> This is not apples to apples because my V8 Server OS is 2003 X64 and SQL 2005 .... my E9 Server OS is 2008 R2 X64 and SQL 2008.
>
> I would really like to get the same numbers as my virtual V8 box.
>
> In the diagnostic tool the Network numbers are similar but the server number is roughly double. Trying to put my finger on that part.
>
> I am open to suggestions for things to check or tweak.
>
> Thanks for the help,
> Neil
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> >
> > Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?
> >
> > reply Signature
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> >
> >
> >
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.
> >
> > My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)
> >
> > Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Neil
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
> > >
> > > Server Network
> > >
> > > Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> > > Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> > > Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
> > >
> > > Why is this double ? ^^^
> > >
> > > Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
> > >
> > > We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > > > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > > > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > > > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > >
> > > > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best thing I ever did...
> > > > >
> > > > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > > > >
> > > > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > >
> > > > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It helped marginally.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "timlester67"
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > Production:
> > > > > Server .60
> > > > > Network .38
> > > > >
> > > > > Test:
> > > > > Server .58
> > > > > Network .37
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim Lester
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > > motty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

system · March 20, 2013, 8:31pm

Hello,

Is it possible to obtain a copy of your batch job as we would like to implement the same. In addition I heard there is a Time Out setting that can be set to prevent Epicor from crashing instantly when there is a network blip? In fact we find that epicor crashes instantly with any network interruption.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers..
J Seeman

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Neil,
>
> It was stated in one of the Epicor best practices documents, but restarting the three appservers via a batch job every night significantly improved our network time (not too sure how). We went from around .08-1.2 to .45 on Win7 clients and .65 on WinXP. Is that something you have implemented?
>
> By the way, the numbers you are seeing are very good and not something I would think you need to worry about. The tool does state that on a LAN network time should be below .4 which you are. I hope to be able to get down to where you are eventually. Curious, have you run the tool on your clients at all?
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@> wrote:
> >
> > I am running in VMware with a Fiber Channel SAN back end.
> >
> > HP DL380 G8 Host Servers, plenty of horsepower and RAM.
> >
> > I have a virtual copy of my current physical V8 Server and that actually outperforms the physical server (slightly).
> >
> > I have this E9 VM running on the same Host and get the results listed below. That is why I am wondering about configuration tweaks vs expected results.
> >
> > Is E9 just slower ?
> >
> > This is not apples to apples because my V8 Server OS is 2003 X64 and SQL 2005 .... my E9 Server OS is 2008 R2 X64 and SQL 2008.
> >
> > I would really like to get the same numbers as my virtual V8 box.
> >
> > In the diagnostic tool the Network numbers are similar but the server number is roughly double. Trying to put my finger on that part.
> >
> > I am open to suggestions for things to check or tweak.
> >
> > Thanks for the help,
> > Neil
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?
> > >
> > > reply Signature
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua,
> > >
> > > Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.
> > >
> > > My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)
> > >
> > > Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
> > > >
> > > > Server Network
> > > >
> > > > Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> > > > Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> > > > Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
> > > >
> > > > Why is this double ? ^^^
> > > >
> > > > Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
> > > >
> > > > We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > > > > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > > > > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > > > > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best thing I ever did...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It helped marginally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "timlester67"
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Production:
> > > > > > Server .60
> > > > > > Network .38
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Test:
> > > > > > Server .58
> > > > > > Network .37
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tim Lester
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > > > motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

system · March 20, 2013, 11:25pm

Epicor support can provide a batch script that assists in the restarts of app servers. The main thing you have to watch out for with auto restarting the appservers is that you don't have anything scheduled on the startup task in task agent. Because the startup task runs continually (Global Alerts is usually the offending task) it will lock the task appserver from restarting successfully. Epicor tech recommends setting up any of our startup tasks as an interval task of maybe 5 min or so.

reply Signature

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "jseeman21" <jseeman@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:31:29 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool

Hello,

Is it possible to obtain a copy of your batch job as we would like to implement the same. In addition I heard there is a Time Out setting that can be set to prevent Epicor from crashing instantly when there is a network blip? In fact we find that epicor crashes instantly with any network interruption.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers..
J Seeman

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Neil,
>
> It was stated in one of the Epicor best practices documents, but restarting the three appservers via a batch job every night significantly improved our network time (not too sure how). We went from around .08-1.2 to .45 on Win7 clients and .65 on WinXP. Is that something you have implemented?
>
> By the way, the numbers you are seeing are very good and not something I would think you need to worry about. The tool does state that on a LAN network time should be below .4 which you are. I hope to be able to get down to where you are eventually. Curious, have you run the tool on your clients at all?
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@> wrote:
> >
> > I am running in VMware with a Fiber Channel SAN back end.
> >
> > HP DL380 G8 Host Servers, plenty of horsepower and RAM.
> >
> > I have a virtual copy of my current physical V8 Server and that actually outperforms the physical server (slightly).
> >
> > I have this E9 VM running on the same Host and get the results listed below. That is why I am wondering about configuration tweaks vs expected results.
> >
> > Is E9 just slower ?
> >
> > This is not apples to apples because my V8 Server OS is 2003 X64 and SQL 2005 .... my E9 Server OS is 2008 R2 X64 and SQL 2008.
> >
> > I would really like to get the same numbers as my virtual V8 box.
> >
> > In the diagnostic tool the Network numbers are similar but the server number is roughly double. Trying to put my finger on that part.
> >
> > I am open to suggestions for things to check or tweak.
> >
> > Thanks for the help,
> > Neil
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?
> > >
> > > reply Signature
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua,
> > >
> > > Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.
> > >
> > > My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)
> > >
> > > Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
> > > >
> > > > Server Network
> > > >
> > > > Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> > > > Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> > > > Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
> > > >
> > > > Why is this double ? ^^^
> > > >
> > > > Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
> > > >
> > > > We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > > > > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > > > > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > > > > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best thing I ever did...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃƒÆ’Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÆ’Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÆ’Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÆ’Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÆ’Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ It helped marginally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "timlester67"
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃƒÆ’Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Production:
> > > > > > Server .60
> > > > > > Network .38
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Test:
> > > > > > Server .58
> > > > > > Network .37
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tim Lester
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > > > motty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · March 21, 2013, 9:55am

This is the syntax for restarting the appservers (905.xxx), granted you will need to modify it to work for your environment:
---------------------------------------------------
@echo off
echo Restarting Appservers
set DLC=D:\PROGRESS\oe102a
set PATH=%DLC%\BIN;%PATH%
set LIB=%DLC%\LIB;%LIB%

echo STOPPING LOCAL APPSERVERS AND DATABASE
call asbman -name Epicor905ProcessServer -stop
call asbman -name Epicor905TaskAgent -stop
call asbman -name Epicor905 -stop
REM call dbman -database Epicor905 -stop

ping 127.0.0.1 -n 30 > nul

echo STARTING LOCAL APPSERVERS AND DATABASE
REM call dbman -database Epicor905 -start
call asbman -name Epicor905 -start
call asbman -name Epicor905TaskAgent -start
call asbman -name Epicor905ProcessServer -start
-----------------------------------------------------

It is possible to stop/start the database, but we decided to not use that part of the script.

As far as the timeout setting, I am unaware of that setting but would be interested in implementing it.

-Mike

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jseeman21" <jseeman@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to obtain a copy of your batch job as we would like to implement the same. In addition I heard there is a Time Out setting that can be set to prevent Epicor from crashing instantly when there is a network blip? In fact we find that epicor crashes instantly with any network interruption.
>
> Look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Cheers..
> J Seeman
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Neil,
> >
> > It was stated in one of the Epicor best practices documents, but restarting the three appservers via a batch job every night significantly improved our network time (not too sure how). We went from around .08-1.2 to .45 on Win7 clients and .65 on WinXP. Is that something you have implemented?
> >
> > By the way, the numbers you are seeing are very good and not something I would think you need to worry about. The tool does state that on a LAN network time should be below .4 which you are. I hope to be able to get down to where you are eventually. Curious, have you run the tool on your clients at all?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am running in VMware with a Fiber Channel SAN back end.
> > >
> > > HP DL380 G8 Host Servers, plenty of horsepower and RAM.
> > >
> > > I have a virtual copy of my current physical V8 Server and that actually outperforms the physical server (slightly).
> > >
> > > I have this E9 VM running on the same Host and get the results listed below. That is why I am wondering about configuration tweaks vs expected results.
> > >
> > > Is E9 just slower ?
> > >
> > > This is not apples to apples because my V8 Server OS is 2003 X64 and SQL 2005 .... my E9 Server OS is 2008 R2 X64 and SQL 2008.
> > >
> > > I would really like to get the same numbers as my virtual V8 box.
> > >
> > > In the diagnostic tool the Network numbers are similar but the server number is roughly double. Trying to put my finger on that part.
> > >
> > > I am open to suggestions for things to check or tweak.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the help,
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?
> > > >
> > > > reply Signature
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.
> > > >
> > > > My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)
> > > >
> > > > Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
> > > > >
> > > > > Server Network
> > > > >
> > > > > Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> > > > > Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> > > > > Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is this double ? ^^^
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
> > > > >
> > > > > We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Neil
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > > > > > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > > > > > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > > > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > > > > > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best thing I ever did...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It helped marginally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CTO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: "timlester67"
> > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Production:
> > > > > > > Server .60
> > > > > > > Network .38
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Test:
> > > > > > > Server .58
> > > > > > > Network .37
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tim Lester
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > > > > motty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

system · March 21, 2013, 10:44am

Thanks to all for the feedback.

I agree, my numbers are pretty good but I don't understand why an E9 configuration would have double "Server" numbers.

I am still testing and plan to run some IOMETER tests.

I have restarted the services and rebooted the server but always get the same results.

I also agree that splitting SQL from your APP Server is slower than combining them. We have 80 Full Vantage Users and 40 MES Users we run it on a combined configuration.

Regarding the Clients hanging up, that is almost always network latency. I also am unaware of any configuration that would allow for longer timeouts.

If you are seeing this often I recommend you look carefully at all your switch port configurations. As I have posted in other threads it is hugely important that you don't "mismatch" the settings on the switch port and the connected machine (Server or Client).

I always Force my Server NIC settings as well as my Switch Port so that I know they match and aren't repeatedly negotiating in Auto.
Clients I just let the Auto negotiate.

If you have your ports "Teamed-Trunked" make sure that you are choosing a protocol that is correct for your switch, you will find this in the advanced section of the NIC TEAM configuration.
I have to set my switch teams to use (Routing Based on IP-Hash)for VMware, and (Switch Assisted Load Balancing) in our HP TEAMING.

This is a bit unusual and certainly not the default when creating trunks which usually will choose FIP or 8.02.3ad or default or some other scheme.

Read up on your switch and test the different options, they don't usually fail, they will just not work quite right. I would rather things failed because when they "almost" work correctly it is easy to think you have it right when you really don't !

Neil

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the syntax for restarting the appservers (905.xxx), granted you will need to modify it to work for your environment:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> @echo off
> echo Restarting Appservers
> set DLC=D:\PROGRESS\oe102a
> set PATH=%DLC%\BIN;%PATH%
> set LIB=%DLC%\LIB;%LIB%
>
> echo STOPPING LOCAL APPSERVERS AND DATABASE
> call asbman -name Epicor905ProcessServer -stop
> call asbman -name Epicor905TaskAgent -stop
> call asbman -name Epicor905 -stop
> REM call dbman -database Epicor905 -stop
>
> ping 127.0.0.1 -n 30 > nul
>
> echo STARTING LOCAL APPSERVERS AND DATABASE
> REM call dbman -database Epicor905 -start
> call asbman -name Epicor905 -start
> call asbman -name Epicor905TaskAgent -start
> call asbman -name Epicor905ProcessServer -start
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> It is possible to stop/start the database, but we decided to not use that part of the script.
>
> As far as the timeout setting, I am unaware of that setting but would be interested in implementing it.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "jseeman21" <jseeman@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is it possible to obtain a copy of your batch job as we would like to implement the same. In addition I heard there is a Time Out setting that can be set to prevent Epicor from crashing instantly when there is a network blip? In fact we find that epicor crashes instantly with any network interruption.
> >
> > Look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> > Cheers..
> > J Seeman
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Neil,
> > >
> > > It was stated in one of the Epicor best practices documents, but restarting the three appservers via a batch job every night significantly improved our network time (not too sure how). We went from around .08-1.2 to .45 on Win7 clients and .65 on WinXP. Is that something you have implemented?
> > >
> > > By the way, the numbers you are seeing are very good and not something I would think you need to worry about. The tool does state that on a LAN network time should be below .4 which you are. I hope to be able to get down to where you are eventually. Curious, have you run the tool on your clients at all?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am running in VMware with a Fiber Channel SAN back end.
> > > >
> > > > HP DL380 G8 Host Servers, plenty of horsepower and RAM.
> > > >
> > > > I have a virtual copy of my current physical V8 Server and that actually outperforms the physical server (slightly).
> > > >
> > > > I have this E9 VM running on the same Host and get the results listed below. That is why I am wondering about configuration tweaks vs expected results.
> > > >
> > > > Is E9 just slower ?
> > > >
> > > > This is not apples to apples because my V8 Server OS is 2003 X64 and SQL 2005 .... my E9 Server OS is 2008 R2 X64 and SQL 2008.
> > > >
> > > > I would really like to get the same numbers as my virtual V8 box.
> > > >
> > > > In the diagnostic tool the Network numbers are similar but the server number is roughly double. Trying to put my finger on that part.
> > > >
> > > > I am open to suggestions for things to check or tweak.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the help,
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Beyond the best practices documents I don't really know what else to tune. Never have experimented myself to find out what effect certain changes might have on the system. I've learned to accept that with Epicor performance there is no "Smoking Gun" but more of a blood trail... Closest thing I've gotten to a smoking gun is going from HDDs to SSDs in addition to some fixes to bad customizations. What kind of equipment do you have?
> > > > >
> > > > > reply Signature
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03:22 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for that info. I have read their documents and have tried a few things but I was hoping for some "real world" advice that might not be contained in their documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > My system is SQL and it is on the same machine as Epicor. (not split)
> > > > >
> > > > > Any advice like .pf settings or other magic would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Neil
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Epicor has some best practices documents that you get get from tech support that list specific adjustments to make on the app servers and if your on SQL within SQL setup and maintenance. About 4-5 documents
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "too_much_hg" <neil_willet@>
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:47:22 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are gettin OK numbers, but I would like to get better on my Epicor 9.04.701 Server when compared to Vantage 8.03.409C
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Server Network
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Physical V8 Server : .12 .28
> > > > > > Virtual V8 Server : .11 .21
> > > > > > Virtual E9 Server : .26 .31
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is this double ? ^^^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can someone recommend some tuning parameters for the E9 Server ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have about 30 Heavy users, 40 light users and 30 MES users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Neil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have about 15 concurrent users at a time on average. To be honest I have not seen a lot of client side speed up from these changes except for in these areas:
> > > > > > > - Crystal Reports generate and transfer faster
> > > > > > > - BO methods are faster by 10ths of seconds only (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > > > > - BAQs and Searches run faster by about 10%
> > > > > > > - Screens cache and load faster (Could be affected by other hardware changes made more RAM we added, better processors etc)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of the only other things from a client perspective that seemed to make an impact was adding an SSD to client computers. Nothing else RAM, CPU, etc seemed to make a significant difference and the SSD only helped screen loads and refreshes. BO method timing stayed about the same and improved again by 10ths of seconds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CTO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: "mikethorne1980" <mikethorne1980@>
> > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:13:29 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you notice a significant client performance increase Josh? Also how many users do you currently have?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Joshua Giese wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best thing I ever did...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Took my Epicor App OS out of a striped RAID array
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Put SQL and Epicor on the same box with SSD drives.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All my times dropped to the posted averages. I found that when SQL and Epicor were on seperate physical boxes that Epicor was always waiting for SQL to get data back to it, but SQL was waiting for input from Epicor because I had aÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ hard drive bottleneck.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It was a vicious circle.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ I put a crossover between the two machines, put those two NICs in their own subnet and took the switch out of the equation.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ It helped marginally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CTO
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: "timlester67"
> > > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:56:20 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: E9 Performance Diagnostic Tool
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Curious how much tuning everyone did to obtain the numbers posted. Our server times are much higher than everyone else. We use 1 App server and 1 SQL server, physical boxes. We are seeing the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Production:
> > > > > > > > Server .60
> > > > > > > > Network .38
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Test:
> > > > > > > > Server .58
> > > > > > > > Network .37
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tim Lester
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > before correction server time was just about as after (.15 - .20) but 'network time' was around .55 ++
> > > > > > > > > motty
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you recall your numbers before hand and after the upgrade before correcting the issue? What did you see on your new boxes after correcting the issue.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A footnote to `network time' values and VW configuration.
> > > > > > > > > > > About 9 months ago I upgraded all my production host servers on VM to top of the line Dell servers and left the `old' server as part of the DRS configuration so I can move the Epicor server over.
> > > > > > > > > > > Once on the new environment `Server time' values were same as old but network time was x2 (worst).
> > > > > > > > > > > It took a lot of time to figure issue out and main issue was BIOS power profile configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > Bottom line, not sure what Epicor considers `Network time' as it seems to be all calculated on the actual box
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "jgiese1988" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We get something like
> > > > > > > > > > > > .13 server
> > > > > > > > > > > > .48 network
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the server time as we have really long disk queues that are killing us on the server.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "mseal" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks John,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Server - .15
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Network - .33
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how you consider your overall performance on a 1-5
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , John Driggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of variables but it's probably as good a place as any to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server: .14
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Network: .36
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Chief Data Wrangler*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I have an Epicor blog http://usdoingstuff.com/ >. How useful is that?*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *:: 904.404.9233
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :: waffqle@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :: http://www.usdoingstuff.com http://www.usdoingstuff.com/ >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, mseal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all of us on Epicor 9, wonder if one company's stats of the `Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diagnostics' represents a good benchmark for server/dB and client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping Epicor would publish benchmark ranges and I could assess how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good/bad my settings are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would that work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Motty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>