Epicor Performance

There is a lot more to it than that.

I would never suggest doing what you are suggesting, using different drives in the same RAID array can be devastating sometimes, the only way that would even slightly work is if you replaced 1 disk at a time with one that is the same size otherwise it can get messy. Plus, doing 2 drives at a time can lead to corruption because the mirrors and striping don't always line up just right, rebuilding one disk at a time is the only way to make sure everything is completely accurate.

You could try it this way..... install 2 SSDs as their own RAID, then you can turn everything related to Epicor off, copy everything from the E drive to the new drive, then rename the new drive to E after making E something else.

But in general, I prefer to just redo an installation if I am making that kind of change.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:38 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Hi All

Our Epicor server has 4 drives that make up the drive that holds all of the Epicor data.

They show as being double the size of a normal drive, then in raid so are copied to the other pair of drives.

The disks are 136GB I think.

My computer shows up as C = 136GB, D = 136GB E = 273GB, but there are 8 drives in the server so they are all in raid.

If we wanted to try some SSDs for the E drive, would it just be a case of e.g. finding the mirrored pair, remove them, install 2 x SSDs in their place, let the system run for a whole so all of the data from the normal drives gets copied across to them, then do the same with the normal drives (remove them and swap them with SSDs)?

Or is there a lot more to it than that?

Thanks.



________________________________
From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 18:37
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.



With a split install would I be looking to run that metric against our
Epicor app server or the sql server?

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Vic Drecchio
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:12 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Start --- RUN --- Perfmon

http://www.computerperformance.co.uk/HealthCheck/Disk_Health.htm

http://adminfoo.net/2007/04/windows-perfmon-top-ten-counters.html

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
McMullen, Travis
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:09 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Is there an answerbook on how to get to and configure Perfmon? I don't
know if I remember how to access it...

Travis L. McMullen
ERP Specialist
ComSonics, Inc.
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Phone: 540-434-5965 x1274
Toll Free: 1-800-336-9681 x1274
Mobile: 540-435-1920
Fax: 540-434-9847
E-Mail: tmcmullen@... <mailto:tmcmullen%40comsonics.com>
<mailto:tmcmullen%40comsonics.com>

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Driggers <waffqle@...
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> > wrote:

> Perfmon.
>
> Just load it up and do a 'right click > add counter'. It's a fairly long
> list to sort through, but it's in there. Once you set it up with all the
> counters you want, you can save the layout for future reference.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM, McMullen, Travis
> <tmcmullen@... <mailto:tmcmullen%40comsonics.com>
<mailto:tmcmullen%40comsonics.com> >wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I should probably know this, but where can I view the disk queue
length
> for
> > E9? I thought it was in the Progress Explorer Tool for Vantage 8.03,
but
> I
> > can't find it in E9.
> >
> > Travis L. McMullen
> > ERP Specialist
> > ComSonics, Inc.
> > Harrisonburg, VA 22801
> > Phone: 540-434-5965 x1274
> > Toll Free: 1-800-336-9681 x1274
> > Mobile: 540-435-1920
> > Fax: 540-434-9847
> > E-Mail: tmcmullen@... <mailto:tmcmullen%40comsonics.com>
<mailto:tmcmullen%40comsonics.com>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, John Driggers <waffqle@...
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm with Vic here.
> > > If you're only going to watch one metric, watch your disk queue
length.
> > If
> > > it starts getting high, either you don't have enough disk IO, your
> system
> > > isn't caching properly or something. Obviously, a more holistic view
is
> > > preferable. That said, queue length is probably the closest thing to
an
> > > 'Epicor Performance' metric.
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Vic Drecchio
> > > <vic.drecchio@... <mailto:vic.drecchio%40swepcotube.com>
<mailto:vic.drecchio%40swepcotube.com>
>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Solely using your CPU as a metric for performance isn't feasible,
> IMO.
> > > > When you're talking transactional, you need to also focus on I/O.
My
> > > server
> > > > is 5 years old and rarely creeps above 25% utilization. My server
is
> an
> > > > antique comparatively to today's array of options. But it works.
RAM,
> > CPU
> > > > and I/O are all good benchmarks. Use PerfMon on your server if you
> > don't
> > > > already. You can add all sorts of angles to view your utilization.
> > > >
> > > > http://adminfoo.net/2007/04/windows-perfmon-top-ten-counters.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of Chris Thompson
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:58 AM
> > > >
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> > > >
> > > > Our one box never peaks (rarely for a few seconds) over 15%CPU and
> the
> > PF
> > > > use never goes about 7GB.
> > > >
> > > > I dont know why they demand all of this memory and CPU when it
doesnt
> > use
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: John Driggers <waffqle@...
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> >
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 14:40
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> > > >
> > > > We've always run our system on one box and generally suggest it to
> > > others.
> > > > Outside of 2-3 very large sites or people that are trying to run
on
> > > antique
> > > > hardware, I've never seen anyone that was really pushing the
limits
> of
> > > > their server.
> > > > Bad BPMs, BAQs, configs, etc can drag things down pretty fast. But
> once
> > > > they are sorted out, you usually see that processing time is split
> > 70/30
> > > > client/server --often even more lopsided.
> > > >
> > > > Setting up client caching and network compression and such will
> almost
> > > > always net you more than tinkering with your server. When I did my
> > tests
> > > > for network compression, I saw processing time cut in half on
> average.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Jose Gomez <jose@...
<mailto:jose%40josecgomez.com>
<mailto:jose%40josecgomez.com>
> > <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > > jose%40josecgomez.com> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hardware is cheap, you can get all the bells and whistles you'd
> ever
> > > want
> > > > > for a fraction of what it would cost you to change your ERP
system.
> > > > > Epicor has its performance issues but overall works fine if
> > configured
> > > > > correctly, the truth is that as a developer I can understand why
> they
> > > > have
> > > > > some of the speed issues that they have, the way the application
is
> > > > written
> > > > > is made to be flexible and extremely customizable which means
> > > everything
> > > > > has to be built on the fly or Just In Time, I'd challange you to
> > find a
> > > > > product that is as flexible and has no speed issues.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *Jose C Gomez*
> > > > > *Software Engineer*
> > > > > *
> > > > > *
> > > > > *checkout my new blog <http://www.usdoingstuff.com> *
> > > > > *
> > > > > *T: 904.469.1524 mobile
> > > > > E: jose@... <mailto:jose%40josecgomez.com>
<mailto:jose%40josecgomez.com>
<mailto:jose%40josecgomez.com>
> > > > > http://www.josecgomez.com
> > > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/josecgomez> <
> > > > > http://www.facebook.com/josegomez>
> > > > > <http://www.google.com/profiles/jose.gomez> <
> > > > http://www.twitter.com/joc85
> > > > > >
> > > > > <http://www.josecgomez.com/professional-resume/>
> > > > > <http://www.josecgomez.com/feed/>
> > > > > <http://www.usdoingstuff.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > *Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Joshua Giese <
> > > > > jgiese@...
<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com>
<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed there are, but what's the lesser of two evils for the
> number
> > > of
> > > > > > features and customizability that Epicor offers, that is the
> > > question.
> > > > > > Despite all the pain it causes us, it's undeniable how
flexible
> it
> > > is.
> > > > As
> > > > > > with any large software that covers an end-to-end spectrum of
> > > business
> > > > > > functions you have to expect bugs and bloat it's how Epicor
tends
> > to
> > > > > > handle the issues that seems to be more of a problem. Their
> > > development
> > > > > > team seems rather lackadaisical about coding consistency and
> naming
> > > > > > convention across their framework. I'm sure turnover doesn't
help
> > > that
> > > > > > much either. But I digress..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back to performance, what success have people had with not
using
> a
> > > > split
> > > > > > install and performance gains? I've heard from consultants
that
a
> > > same
> > > > > > box install seems to increase performance by a decent
measurable
> > > > amount.
> > > > > > Can anyone validate that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _____
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On
> > > > Behalf
> > > > > > Of Chris Thompson
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:36 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though
(?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...
<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com>
<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> <mailto:
> > > > jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> >
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm
getting
> > > > people
> > > > > > coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such
is
> > > > life" I
> > > > > > suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant
fixes
> in
> > > > > > performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _____
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > Of Chris Thompson
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it
should
> > be
> > > > down
> > > > > > to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD /
Memory
> > > heavy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: John Driggers <waffqle@...
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> <mailto:
> waffqle%40gmail.com
> > >
> > > > <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all
> > > accounts,
> > > > > > they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That said, unless you have a really large user base it's
probably
> > > much
> > > > > > cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For
the
> > 6k
> > > > > you'd
> > > > > > spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD.
That
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more
> redundancy,
> > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server
to
> > > resolve
> > > > > > performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of
your
> > > > > > processing time is due to work on the client side, not the
> server.
> > > Run
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the
> > performance
> > > > > tool.
> > > > > > Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short,
> > > > > more/faster
> > > > > > disks isn't going to do much for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <
> r.morton03@... <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
> > > <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > > r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP
Accelerator??
> > > They
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works
> > > insanely
> > > > > > fast
> > > > > > > and smooth..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> vantage%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
> > > > > > Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you
can
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of
them
> in
> > a
> > > > Raid
> > > > > > 10
> > > > > > > > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people
will
> > > > disagree
> > > > > > > > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you
need
> it
> > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as
much
> for
> > > > > > > enterprise
> > > > > > > > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > > > > > > > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once
> was.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in
> > recent
> > > > > > years. I
> > > > > > > > know a lot of people running them in workstations without
> > > > mirroring.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Not client related but still performance related, what
> server
> > > > > > > > > configurations have you guys found most performance
success
> > in?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate
> > physical
> > > > > boxes
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have caught wind that there are some strong
performance
> > > > increases
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on
that?
> > I've
> > > > > seen
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm
almost
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you
performance,
> > but
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is
not
> > > there?
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > that a
> > > > > > > > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > > > > "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make
> such a
> > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > > > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > CTO
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _____
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > > vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your
> > desktops,
> > > > > > > replace the
> > > > > > > > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable
> > > difference.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows
7
> x64
> > > > w/8GB
> > > > > > RAM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > > vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com%3cmailto:%0b> <mailto:
> > > > vantage%40yahoogroups.com%0b>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > > > > > > > "Anon"
> > > > > > > > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for
testing
> to
> > > see
> > > > > if
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as
> > > desktops
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most
> > > beneficial
> > > > to
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard
> > > > memory/proc
> > > > > > > > > > requirements what additional considerations should be
> made.
> > > At
> > > > > > base
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc
or
> > > higher
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > 4GB
> > > > > > > > > ram
> > > > > > > > > > or higher.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > > > > > > *:: waffqle@...*
> > > > > > > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > > > > *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> <mailto: <mailto:%0b>
> > > > waffqle%40gmail.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> > > > > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/> <
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> > > > > > <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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > 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/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/> <
> > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > > *
> > > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > > *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> > > >
> > > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > > No virus found in this message.
> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > Version: 2012.0.2176 / Virus Database: 2425/5000 - Release Date:
> > 05/15/12
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *John Driggers*
> > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > *
> > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> >
> > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > [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/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *John Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> *
> **:: 904.404.9233*
> *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> [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/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<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
>
>
>
>

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

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2176 / Virus Database: 2425/5000 - Release Date: 05/15/12

[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
I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB ram or higher.
If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops, replace the hard drive with an SSD.

I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.

I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Anon" <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB ram or higher.
>
When we are printing picklists in Vantage 6.10.542, we choose a date range and anything that is in stock will print. We have to print several times a day in case any new orders are entered. If we print the same date range, anything that has not shipped that is in stock will print which means if the warehouse is still working on pulling and packing the picklists printed in the morning, these will all ship out again. So in this version of Vantage, we had a customization done which will check a box and will not allow anything to be reprinted if it has already printed unless we manually unclick the check box. We are getting ready to go live in Vantage 9 and we were told we probably would not need that customization but we are still having the same issue with reprinting. We need to have Epicor move the customization over to Vantage 9 but we were wondering how other companies deal with this issue. Maybe we are doing this incorrectly and need to modify how we do our processes. Would anyone be willing to share how they handle this in either 6.10 or 9? Any help would be extremely appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mary Horsey
Greene Rubber Company
HR/Finance Manager
20 Cross Street
Woburn MA 01801
mhorsey@...
781-497-1851 (p)
781-937-7881 (f)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a difference.
Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?



Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of too_much_hg
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers





If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops, replace the
hard drive with an SSD.

I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.

I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Anon"
<jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want
to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high
performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value
I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB ram
or higher.
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Not client related but still performance related, what server configurations have you guys found most performance success in?

I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes and SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.

I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases in not having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen a lot of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking that it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but without spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is that a fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a difference.
> Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
>
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of too_much_hg
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
>
>
>
>
>
> If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops, replace the
> hard drive with an SSD.
>
> I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
>
> I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Anon"
> <jgiese@> wrote:
> >
> > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want
> to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
> clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high
> performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value
> I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB ram
> or higher.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Not really. The Epicor forms are generally very complex. If you cache too
many of them, Windows will run out of user objects. If the form takes more
than 1-2 seconds to load, it's most likely coming from the disk.

It's hard to understate the difference SSDs will make. The aren't
super-expensive anymore, get a couple to test with and see for yourself.

Also, I'd shoot for 8 GB of ram. Memory is cheap and it makes a
fairly noticeable difference, especially if your users are running other
heavy apps.

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Joshua Giese <
jgiese@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a difference.
> Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of too_much_hg
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
>
>
> If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops, replace the
> hard drive with an SSD.
>
> I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
>
> I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Anon"
>
> <jgiese@...> wrote:
> >
> > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want
> to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
> clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high
> performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value
> I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB ram
> or higher.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.

The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid 10
and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and the
reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for enterprise
drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.

The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent years. I
know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Not client related but still performance related, what server
> configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
>
> I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes and
> SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
>
> I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases in not
> having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen a lot
> of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking that
> it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but without
> spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is that a
> fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@...> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a difference.
> > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> >
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > Of too_much_hg
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops, replace the
> > hard drive with an SSD.
> >
> > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> >
> > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Anon"
> > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want
> > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
> > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high
> > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value
> > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB
> ram
> > or higher.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They look interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely fast and smooth..

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
>
> If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
>
> The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid 10
> and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and the
> reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for enterprise
> drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
>
> The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent years. I
> know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> >
> > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes and
> > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> >
> > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases in not
> > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen a lot
> > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking that
> > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but without
> > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is that a
> > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a difference.
> > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > > Of too_much_hg
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops, replace the
> > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > >
> > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > >
> > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "Anon"
> > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I want
> > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
> > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a high
> > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base value
> > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and 4GB
> > ram
> > > or higher.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *John Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> *
> **:: 904.404.9233*
> *:: waffqle@...*
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid 10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"
> > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I
> want
> > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
> > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a
> high
> > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base
> value
> > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> 4GB
> > > ram
> > > > or higher.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
>
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We purchased the Fusion-IO ioDrive for our new server that we bought for
our upgrade to 9.05.

So far, it is extremely fast but we are only in the beginning of our
testing.



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of r.morton03
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:41 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.





Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
look interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works
insanely fast and smooth..

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
>
> If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
>
> The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
10
> and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
the
> reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
enterprise
> drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
>
> The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
years. I
> know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> >
> > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
and
> > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> >
> > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
in not
> > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
a lot
> > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
that
> > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
without
> > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
that a
> > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
difference.
> > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Giese
> > >
> > > CTO
> > >
> > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> > > Of too_much_hg
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
replace the
> > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > >
> > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > >
> > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
RAM
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "Anon"
> > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
I want
> > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
for
> > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
a high
> > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
base value
> > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
4GB
> > ram
> > > or higher.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *John Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> *
> **:: 904.404.9233*
> *:: waffqle@...*
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.



________________________________
From: John Driggers <waffqle@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid 10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"
> > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if I
> want
> > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops for
> > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to a
> high
> > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At base
> value
> > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> 4GB
> > > ram
> > > > or higher.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
>
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


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



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

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note:Â 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/.%c2%a0
(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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways





Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.





Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.

________________________________
From: John Driggers <waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"
> > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
I
> want
> > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
for
> > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
a
> high
> > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
base
> value
> > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> 4GB
> > > ram
> > > > or higher.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
>
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>

--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*

[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/.
<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

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I agree, you can wish in one hand and sh#t in another and see which fills up first, its just taking control rather than being a victim, it runs your business, do whatever it takes to make it written the best you can.

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
D&S Manafacturing
M: (715) 896-0590<tel:7158960590>
P: (715) 896-0590<tel:7158960590>

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Droid


-----Original message-----
From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...>
To: "vantage@yahoogroups.com" <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 15, 2012 11:22:51 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.



Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.

________________________________
From: John Driggers <waffqle@...<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"<


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though (?)



________________________________
From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.


Â
Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.

________________________________
From: John Driggers <waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"
> > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
I
> want
> > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
for
> > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
a
> high
> > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
base
> value
> > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> 4GB
> > > ram
> > > > or higher.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
>
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>

--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*

[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/.
<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

[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]
Indeed there are, but what's the lesser of two evils for the number of
features and customizability that Epicor offers, that is the question.
Despite all the pain it causes us, it's undeniable how flexible it is. As
with any large software that covers an end-to-end spectrum of business
functions you have to expect bugs and bloat it's how Epicor tends to
handle the issues that seems to be more of a problem. Their development
team seems rather lackadaisical about coding consistency and naming
convention across their framework. I'm sure turnover doesn't help that
much either. But I digress..



Back to performance, what success have people had with not using a split
install and performance gains? I've heard from consultants that a same
box install seems to increase performance by a decent measurable amount.
Can anyone validate that?



Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:36 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.





There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though (?)

________________________________
From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...
<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.



Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.

________________________________
From: John Driggers <waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"
> > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
I
> want
> > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
for
> > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
a
> high
> > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
base
> value
> > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> 4GB
> > > ram
> > > > or higher.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
>
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>

--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*

[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/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<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

[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]
Hardware is cheap, you can get all the bells and whistles you'd ever want
for a fraction of what it would cost you to change your ERP system.
Epicor has its performance issues but overall works fine if configured
correctly, the truth is that as a developer I can understand why they have
some of the speed issues that they have, the way the application is written
is made to be flexible and extremely customizable which means everything
has to be built on the fly or Just In Time, I'd challange you to find a
product that is as flexible and has no speed issues.


*Jose C Gomez*
*Software Engineer*
*
*
*checkout my new blog <http://www.usdoingstuff.com> *
*
*T: 904.469.1524 mobile
E: jose@...
http://www.josecgomez.com
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/josecgomez> <http://www.facebook.com/josegomez>
<http://www.google.com/profiles/jose.gomez> <http://www.twitter.com/joc85>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/professional-resume/>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/feed/>
<http://www.usdoingstuff.com>

*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*



On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Joshua Giese <
jgiese@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Indeed there are, but what's the lesser of two evils for the number of
> features and customizability that Epicor offers, that is the question.
> Despite all the pain it causes us, it's undeniable how flexible it is. As
> with any large software that covers an end-to-end spectrum of business
> functions you have to expect bugs and bloat it's how Epicor tends to
> handle the issues that seems to be more of a problem. Their development
> team seems rather lackadaisical about coding consistency and naming
> convention across their framework. I'm sure turnover doesn't help that
> much either. But I digress..
>
> Back to performance, what success have people had with not using a split
> install and performance gains? I've heard from consultants that a same
> box install seems to increase performance by a decent measurable amount.
> Can anyone validate that?
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Chris Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:36 AM
>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though (?)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...
> <mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> >
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
> coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
> suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
> performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> Of Chris Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
> to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Driggers <waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
> they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.
>
> That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
> cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
> spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
> PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.
>
> I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
> performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
> processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
> some
> tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
> Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
> disks isn't going to do much for you.
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...
> <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
> look
> > interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
> fast
> > and smooth..
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
> Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> > >
> > > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
> 10
> > > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
> the
> > > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> > enterprise
> > > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> > >
> > > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
> years. I
> > > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > > >
> > > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> > and
> > > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > > >
> > > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
> in
> > not
> > > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
> a
> > lot
> > > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> > that
> > > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
> without
> > > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> > that a
> > > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> > difference.
> > > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > _____
> > > > >
> > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > Behalf
> > > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> > replace the
> > > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > > >
> > > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
> RAM
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > > "Anon"
> > > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
> I
> > want
> > > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
> for
> > > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
> a
> > high
> > > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
> base
> > value
> > > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> > 4GB
> > > > ram
> > > > > or higher.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *John Driggers*
> > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > *
> > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > *:: waffqle@...*
> > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > >
> > > *
> >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> *John Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> *
> **:: 904.404.9233*
> *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> [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/.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> <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
>
> [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]
Id be interested in that as well... we just bought three hunky servers, one for the back end, one for the app server, on for replication. At this point were not live on 9 yet and don't feel compelled to do anything a certain way, just the most effective way. I wonder if upgrading the io cards (fusion or whatever is the best right now) and remaining on one box is an option...

Rob Bucek
Production Control Manager
PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
Mobile: (715)896-0590
FAX: (715)284-4084
[Description: cid:1.234354861@...]<http://www.dsmfg.com/>
(Click the logo to view our site)<http://www.dsmfg.com/>

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joshua Giese
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:05 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.



Indeed there are, but what's the lesser of two evils for the number of
features and customizability that Epicor offers, that is the question.
Despite all the pain it causes us, it's undeniable how flexible it is. As
with any large software that covers an end-to-end spectrum of business
functions you have to expect bugs and bloat it's how Epicor tends to
handle the issues that seems to be more of a problem. Their development
team seems rather lackadaisical about coding consistency and naming
convention across their framework. I'm sure turnover doesn't help that
much either. But I digress..

Back to performance, what success have people had with not using a split
install and performance gains? I've heard from consultants that a same
box install seems to increase performance by a decent measurable amount.
Can anyone validate that?

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:36 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though (?)

________________________________
From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com>
<mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways

Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.

________________________________
From: John Driggers <waffqle@...<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.

That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.

I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
some
tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
disks isn't going to do much for you.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
look
> interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
fast
> and smooth..
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> >
> > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
10
> > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
the
> > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> enterprise
> > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> >
> > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
years. I
> > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > >
> > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> and
> > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > >
> > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
in
> not
> > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
a
> lot
> > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> that
> > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
without
> > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> that a
> > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> difference.
> > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joshua Giese
> > > >
> > > > CTO
> > > >
> > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> replace the
> > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > >
> > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > >
> > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
RAM
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "Anon"
> > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
I
> want
> > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
for
> > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
a
> high
> > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
base
> value
> > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> 4GB
> > > ram
> > > > or higher.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
>
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>

--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
<mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*

[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/.<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
<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

[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]
We've always run our system on one box and generally suggest it to others.
Outside of 2-3 very large sites or people that are trying to run on antique
hardware, I've never seen anyone that was really pushing the limits of
their server.
Bad BPMs, BAQs, configs, etc can drag things down pretty fast. But once
they are sorted out, you usually see that processing time is split 70/30
client/server --often even more lopsided.

Setting up client caching and network compression and such will almost
always net you more than tinkering with your server. When I did my tests
for network compression, I saw processing time cut in half on average.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Jose Gomez <jose@...> wrote:

> Hardware is cheap, you can get all the bells and whistles you'd ever want
> for a fraction of what it would cost you to change your ERP system.
> Epicor has its performance issues but overall works fine if configured
> correctly, the truth is that as a developer I can understand why they have
> some of the speed issues that they have, the way the application is written
> is made to be flexible and extremely customizable which means everything
> has to be built on the fly or Just In Time, I'd challange you to find a
> product that is as flexible and has no speed issues.
>
>
> *Jose C Gomez*
> *Software Engineer*
> *
> *
> *checkout my new blog <http://www.usdoingstuff.com> *
> *
> *T: 904.469.1524 mobile
> E: jose@...
> http://www.josecgomez.com
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/josecgomez> <
> http://www.facebook.com/josegomez>
> <http://www.google.com/profiles/jose.gomez> <http://www.twitter.com/joc85
> >
> <http://www.josecgomez.com/professional-resume/>
> <http://www.josecgomez.com/feed/>
> <http://www.usdoingstuff.com>
>
> *Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Joshua Giese <
> jgiese@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Indeed there are, but what's the lesser of two evils for the number of
> > features and customizability that Epicor offers, that is the question.
> > Despite all the pain it causes us, it's undeniable how flexible it is. As
> > with any large software that covers an end-to-end spectrum of business
> > functions you have to expect bugs and bloat it's how Epicor tends to
> > handle the issues that seems to be more of a problem. Their development
> > team seems rather lackadaisical about coding consistency and naming
> > convention across their framework. I'm sure turnover doesn't help that
> > much either. But I digress..
> >
> > Back to performance, what success have people had with not using a split
> > install and performance gains? I've heard from consultants that a same
> > box install seems to increase performance by a decent measurable amount.
> > Can anyone validate that?
> >
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > Of Chris Thompson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:36 AM
> >
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> >
> > There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though (?)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...
> > <mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> >
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
> > Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> >
> > Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
> > coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
> > suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
> > performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways
> >
> > Joshua Giese
> >
> > CTO
> >
> > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Chris Thompson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> >
> > Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
> > to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John Driggers <waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
> > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
> >
> > I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
> > they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.
> >
> > That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
> > cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k
> you'd
> > spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
> > PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.
> >
> > I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
> > performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
> > processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
> > some
> > tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance
> tool.
> > Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short,
> more/faster
> > disks isn't going to do much for you.
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...
> > <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
> > look
> > > interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
> > fast
> > > and smooth..
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
> > Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> > > >
> > > > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > > > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
> > 10
> > > > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > > > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
> > the
> > > > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> > > enterprise
> > > > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > > > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> > > >
> > > > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
> > years. I
> > > > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical
> boxes
> > > and
> > > > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
> > in
> > > not
> > > > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've
> seen
> > a
> > > lot
> > > > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost
> thinking
> > > that
> > > > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
> > without
> > > > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there?
> Is
> > > that a
> > > > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> > > difference.
> > > > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _____
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> > > replace the
> > > > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
> > RAM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > > > "Anon"
> > > > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see
> if
> > I
> > > want
> > > > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
> > for
> > > > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
> > a
> > > high
> > > > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
> > base
> > > value
> > > > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher
> and
> > > 4GB
> > > > > ram
> > > > > > or higher.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *John Driggers*
> > > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > > *
> > > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > > *:: waffqle@...*
> > > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > [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/.
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> > <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
> >
> > [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]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>


--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


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

I wouldnt disagree. It is hard to find an 'out of the box' application that offer so much.

It is just the lack of support and number of bugs that frustrated me.

The performance has been poor since day one but we have lived with it.

There is a limit to how much faith you can put into support - if they cant check it for bugs why should we?

Especially when they were boasting 700 being the system of systems and stability etc.

Then they have a patch to fix the bugs they missed.

I dont know maybe I am just a frustrated Epicor user.

The cost of recommended hardware would go a long way to buying a different system if one did exist.



________________________________
From: Jose Gomez <jose@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 14:15
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.

Hardware is cheap, you can get all the bells and whistles you'd ever want
for a fraction of what it would cost you to change your ERP system.
Epicor has its performance issues but overall works fine if configured
correctly, the truth is that as a developer I can understand why they have
some of the speed issues that they have, the way the application is written
is made to be flexible and extremely customizable which means everything
has to be built on the fly or Just In Time, I'd challange you to find a
product that is as flexible and has no speed issues.


*Jose C Gomez*
*Software Engineer*
*
*
*checkout my new blog <http://www.usdoingstuff.com> *
*
*T: 904.469.1524 mobile
E: jose@...
http://www.josecgomez.com
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/josecgomez>Â <http://www.facebook.com/josegomez>
 <http://www.google.com/profiles/jose.gomez> <http://www.twitter.com/joc85>
 <http://www.josecgomez.com/professional-resume/>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/feed/>
 <http://www.usdoingstuff.com>

*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*



On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Joshua Giese <
jgiese@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Indeed there are, but what's the lesser of two evils for the number of
> features and customizability that Epicor offers, that is the question.
> Despite all the pain it causes us, it's undeniable how flexible it is. As
> with any large software that covers an end-to-end spectrum of business
> functions you have to expect bugs and bloat it's how Epicor tends to
> handle the issues that seems to be more of a problem. Their development
> team seems rather lackadaisical about coding consistency and naming
> convention across their framework. I'm sure turnover doesn't help that
> much either. But I digress..
>
> Back to performance, what success have people had with not using a split
> install and performance gains? I've heard from consultants that a same
> box install seems to increase performance by a decent measurable amount.
> Can anyone validate that?
>
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Chris Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:36 AM
>
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> There are other ERP Manufacturing software out there though (?)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Joshua Giese <jgiese@...
> <mailto:jgiese%40wisconsinconverting.com> >
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 12:12
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> Because it's not a perfect world and in the mean time I'm getting people
> coming after me all the time because Epicor is too slow. "Such is life" I
> suppose... I don't hold out that there will be significant fixes in
> performance gains before these clients need to retire anyways
>
> Joshua Giese
>
> CTO
>
> 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> Of Chris Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:54 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> Why does everyone insist on upgrading hardware etc when it should be down
> to Epicor to write a 'smoother' package that isnt so HD / Memory heavy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Driggers <waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> >
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 15:29
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Performance.
>
> I've talked to a few people that are/were using them. By all accounts,
> they're every bit as fast as they claim to be.
>
> That said, unless you have a really large user base it's probably much
> cheaper to buy SSDs or more effective to upgrade clients. For the 6k you'd
> spend on one of the Fusion cards, you could get 15-20 SSD. That should be
> PLENTY of iops for just about anyone, more space, more redundancy, etc.
>
> I see a lot of people that want to go straight to the server to resolve
> performance issues. More often than not the vast majority of your
> processing time is due to work on the client side, not the server. Run
> some
> tests and check for yourself. Test some clients with the performance tool.
> Check the queue length on your server. If your queue is short, more/faster
> disks isn't going to do much for you.
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r.morton03 <r.morton03@...
> <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:r.morton03%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Has anybody seen/heard about the Fusion IO and HP Accelerator?? They
> look
> > interesting... I heard a testimony at Insights that it works insanely
> fast
> > and smooth..
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , John
> Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you can afford SSD you want them. Period.
> > >
> > > The enterprise drives are still expensive. That said, you can use the
> > > consumer drives so long as they are raided. Stick 4 of them in a Raid
> 10
> > > and put a spare or two on the shelf. I know some people will disagree
> > > here. But for my money, if the performance is where you need it and
> the
> > > reliability is there, I see no reason to spend 4-5x as much for
> > enterprise
> > > drives. Especially with SSD, the performance gulf between
> > > consumer/enterprise drives isn't nearly as vast as it once was.
> > >
> > > The reliability of SSDs overall has gotten much better in recent
> years. I
> > > know a lot of people running them in workstations without mirroring.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Anon <jgiese@...>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not client related but still performance related, what server
> > > > configurations have you guys found most performance success in?
> > > >
> > > > I have a split install SQL and Epicor on two seperate physical boxes
> > and
> > > > SQL DBs on a storage array connected to the SQL box.
> > > >
> > > > I have caught wind that there are some strong performance increases
> in
> > not
> > > > having a split install. What are peoples thoughts on that? I've seen
> a
> > lot
> > > > of back and fourth on SSD on the forum here, and I'm almost thinking
> > that
> > > > it's uncontested that SSD are going to get you performance, but
> without
> > > > spending large cash on great drives the reliability is not there? Is
> > that a
> > > > fair summation of the discussions I have seen on here?
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Joshua Giese" <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. Why would the IO of the hard drive make such a
> > difference.
> > > > > Isn't most of Epicor just stored in RAM?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Giese
> > > > >
> > > > > CTO
> > > > >
> > > > > 920.437.6400 Ext. 337
> > > > >
> > > > > _____
> > > > >
> > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > Behalf
> > > > > Of too_much_hg
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:48 PM
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Client Computers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to add some serious performance to your desktops,
> > replace the
> > > > > hard drive with an SSD.
> > > > >
> > > > > I put an SSD in my desktop and it made a noticable difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am running an HP DC5750 (Dual Core 2.8 Ghz) Windows 7 x64 w/8GB
> RAM
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > > "Anon"
> > > > > <jgiese@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am looking to purchase a client computer for testing to see if
> I
> > want
> > > > > to replace a larger population of computers. As far as desktops
> for
> > > > > clients go, what kind of specs are going to be most beneficial to
> a
> > high
> > > > > performing client computer. Aside from your standard memory/proc
> > > > > requirements what additional considerations should be made. At
> base
> > value
> > > > > I'm starting with looking at anything with a i5 Proc or higher and
> > 4GB
> > > > ram
> > > > > or higher.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *John Driggers*
> > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > > *
> > > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > > *:: waffqle@...*
> > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > >
> > > *
> >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> *John Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> *
> **:: 904.404.9233*
> *:: waffqle@... <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:waffqle%40gmail.com> *
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> [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/.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> <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
>
> [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]



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

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note:Â 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/.%c2%a0
(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



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