One or two Databases for Two companies?

The conversion from 4.41 to 8.03 (with all transactions) is only
$3K. It is the $4K fee to compbine the two data bases into one that
has me ruffled.

Is the Epicor $4K method the only way to merge the two databases (on
the same rev of OE and Vantage) into one?

Calvin

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Manasa Reddy" <manasa@...> wrote:
>
> Calvin,
>
> Make sure they actually want to convert the "transactions"...for
$4K it
> is actually worth the price. If it is just importing your master
table
> setup...hire the temps, or use as practice for your end users!
>
> GET IT IN WRITING!
>
>
>
> M. Manasa Reddy
> manasa@...
> P: 630-806-2000
> F: 630-806-2001
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Calvin Krusen
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 2:12 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: One or two Databases for Two companies?
>
>
>
> Thanks to all that tgave their 2 cents.
>
> A single DB with two companies looks like the way to go, mostly
for
> the maintenance aspects.
>
> Epicor want $3K to convert company B from 4.41 to 8.03.403. That's
> reasonable. However they want an additional $4k to 'merge' the
> convert company B with the live company A db. That part seems
steep.
>
> What methods exist to 'import' data into Vantage? Company B on
4.41
> only has about 20-30 user transactions per month. It looks like
> hiring some temps and just re-keying everything from scratch might
> be more cost effective.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Calvin
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > How about general maintenance like maintaing users(currently
> > > employees from company 'A' do all the processing for
> company 'B'),
> > > report formats, customizations, etc...
> >
> > In a single database:
> >
> > - You can easily write queries (BAQs) across companies
> > - Single maintenance schdule
> > - Single backup/restore
> > - Patches/Upgrades on one database has only one data conversion
> > - Bringing down one database shuts down the whole enterprise
> > - BPMs/Customizations can be shared easily but may be harder to
> write if
> > they only apply to one company.
> >
> > In multiple databases:
> >
> > - Different time zones can have different maintenance schedules
> (backup on
> > DB1 at 6:00 EST while DB2 is at 6:00 PST
> > - Must perform data conversions on separate databases
> > - Multiple backup/restore processes
> > - Combined company reporting more difficult
> > - Customization is clearly separated requiring export/import to
> keep in sync
> >
> > I'm not sure of the issues with Web Services. Two databases
would
> have to
> > have two different listeners but a single database would have to
> be company
> > aware.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Mark W.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Are there any advantages, or disadvantages, of having two companies in
seperate databases?

We're currently running one company in 8.03.403, and another in Vista
4.41. When we migrate the second company from 4.41 to 8.03, should we
attempt to merge them into a single database with two companies? Or
would seperate DBs be better?

For what its worth...
Company #2 only provides services. No manufacturing, inventory, field
service scheduling, payroll, or purchasing. Just sales, A/R, and GL.
Very few inter-company transactions.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Calvin Krusen
We have been researching this since we are starting a new company that
would be a subsidiary of us.

One thing is do the two companies have the same Federal Tax ID? If not,
and you do not want to consolidate your financials, then leave the
second company in the separate database. Both companies would have
access to the same modules, but you would have to buy users for both
companies. Meaning if Company A has 10 users and Company B has 15
users, you would have to buy 25 users total.

For us, we would have two databases for our separate companies.

I have to say I stopped researching there, because the whole Multi Site
/ Multi Company deal was confusing the crap out of me.

Hope this helps a little....


M. Manasa Reddy
manasa@...
P: 630-806-2000
F: 630-806-2001


________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Calvin Krusen
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:02 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] One or two Databases for Two companies?



Are there any advantages, or disadvantages, of having two companies in
seperate databases?

We're currently running one company in 8.03.403, and another in Vista
4.41. When we migrate the second company from 4.41 to 8.03, should we
attempt to merge them into a single database with two companies? Or
would seperate DBs be better?

For what its worth...
Company #2 only provides services. No manufacturing, inventory, field
service scheduling, payroll, or purchasing. Just sales, A/R, and GL.
Very few inter-company transactions.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Calvin Krusen






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Well this is a question to ask your Accounting/CPA firm who signs off your financials. If the two companies have two bank accounts and separate set of P &Ls, financials with no 3rd party merged reporting entity then you probably want to keep two separate databases. We have a single owner who owns 2 separate companies- two separate tax entities with two different set of board of directors, 2 P & L statements that have nothing else in common. We use the same license of Vantage, 2 databases that share the same install of application and Open Edge. Works fine and has been for the last 2 years+.
If you have any shared 3rd party merged reporting, then you may want to consider the option of 1 database, 2 companies with merged upwards reporting. Again your CPA should help decide this.
Hope this helps.
RSN



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We too are two seperate companies with seperate Tax IDs and P&Ls.

I guess my original question was part technical, and part opinion.

When I say 2 databases, I'm refering to two seperate files like the
way Epicor provides the Test company (E:\epicor\mfgsys803
\db\mfgsys.d1 and E:\epicor\Test803\DB\mfgsys.d1). Each of which
are independently managed using the Progress Explorer Tool. When
you launch the MfgSystem program it chooses the DB based on the
mfgsys.cfg file.

As compared to having multiple companies in the one mfgsys.d1 file,
and using the Options\Change Company menu on the main window.

Is there a performance difference between running two databases on
the same server vs. having two companies in one DB?

How about general maintenance like maintaing users(currently
employees from company 'A' do all the processing for company 'B'),
report formats, customizations, etc...

Thanks,

Calvin

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, RSN <rsnsfi@...> wrote:
>
> Well this is a question to ask your Accounting/CPA firm who signs
off your financials. If the two companies have two bank accounts and
separate set of P &Ls, financials with no 3rd party merged reporting
entity then you probably want to keep two separate databases. We
have a single owner who owns 2 separate companies- two separate tax
entities with two different set of board of directors, 2 P & L
statements that have nothing else in common. We use the same license
of Vantage, 2 databases that share the same install of application
and Open Edge. Works fine and has been for the last 2 years+.
> If you have any shared 3rd party merged reporting, then you may
want to consider the option of 1 database, 2 companies with merged
upwards reporting. Again your CPA should help decide this.
> Hope this helps.
> RSN
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Calvin- my response on how we are setup was implied to indicate 2 separate databases as we have now is two mfgsys.db in two c:\epicor\folders eg: epicor\mfgsys80\SFIPROD and FCIPROD folders each have their own mfgsys.db and related image files. They each take up approximately 350MB and 380MB respectively. From Progress Explorer tool, I have two databases (actually 4 databases since I've created corresponding TEST databases I refresh every week for each PROD database + the TRAIN Database) to startup with its associated appsservers as well. Which means each database occupies server resources in memory. I reboot my server every month and shut down databases nightly for a cold backup period daily.
If you just have 1 database with two companies set up within it then your database size might increase but it doesn't use up double the server resources so to speak since only one set of processes per database reside in memory.
Hope this is clearer.
RSN



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We currently have 2 separate companies in the same database. One is our
subsidiary. Since it is one database, one Vantage/Progress installation
there was no additional cost to get Vantage set up for the second
company, the only exception being we needed to purchase additional
Vantage user licenses. The licenses are shared between both companies.
Our company located out of state connects to Vantage via our WAN
connection but has the same functionality as we do.









Jerry Rodden

Asst. Manager - MIS

Cardington Yutaka Technologies Inc.

575 West Main Street

Cardington, OH 43315

Phone: 419-864-8777 ext. 6209

Fax: 419-864-7771

Email jrodden@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> How about general maintenance like maintaing users(currently
> employees from company 'A' do all the processing for company 'B'),
> report formats, customizations, etc...

In a single database:

- You can easily write queries (BAQs) across companies
- Single maintenance schdule
- Single backup/restore
- Patches/Upgrades on one database has only one data conversion
- Bringing down one database shuts down the whole enterprise
- BPMs/Customizations can be shared easily but may be harder to write if
they only apply to one company.

In multiple databases:

- Different time zones can have different maintenance schedules (backup on
DB1 at 6:00 EST while DB2 is at 6:00 PST
- Must perform data conversions on separate databases
- Multiple backup/restore processes
- Combined company reporting more difficult
- Customization is clearly separated requiring export/import to keep in sync

I'm not sure of the issues with Web Services. Two databases would have to
have two different listeners but a single database would have to be company
aware.

HTH,

Mark W.
Thanks to all that tgave their 2 cents.

A single DB with two companies looks like the way to go, mostly for
the maintenance aspects.

Epicor want $3K to convert company B from 4.41 to 8.03.403. That's
reasonable. However they want an additional $4k to 'merge' the
convert company B with the live company A db. That part seems steep.

What methods exist to 'import' data into Vantage? Company B on 4.41
only has about 20-30 user transactions per month. It looks like
hiring some temps and just re-keying everything from scratch might
be more cost effective.

Thanks,

Calvin

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...>
wrote:
>
> > How about general maintenance like maintaing users(currently
> > employees from company 'A' do all the processing for
company 'B'),
> > report formats, customizations, etc...
>
> In a single database:
>
> - You can easily write queries (BAQs) across companies
> - Single maintenance schdule
> - Single backup/restore
> - Patches/Upgrades on one database has only one data conversion
> - Bringing down one database shuts down the whole enterprise
> - BPMs/Customizations can be shared easily but may be harder to
write if
> they only apply to one company.
>
> In multiple databases:
>
> - Different time zones can have different maintenance schedules
(backup on
> DB1 at 6:00 EST while DB2 is at 6:00 PST
> - Must perform data conversions on separate databases
> - Multiple backup/restore processes
> - Combined company reporting more difficult
> - Customization is clearly separated requiring export/import to
keep in sync
>
> I'm not sure of the issues with Web Services. Two databases would
have to
> have two different listeners but a single database would have to
be company
> aware.
>
> HTH,
>
> Mark W.
>
Calvin,

Make sure they actually want to convert the "transactions"...for $4K it
is actually worth the price. If it is just importing your master table
setup...hire the temps, or use as practice for your end users!

GET IT IN WRITING!



M. Manasa Reddy
manasa@...
P: 630-806-2000
F: 630-806-2001


________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Calvin Krusen
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 2:12 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: One or two Databases for Two companies?



Thanks to all that tgave their 2 cents.

A single DB with two companies looks like the way to go, mostly for
the maintenance aspects.

Epicor want $3K to convert company B from 4.41 to 8.03.403. That's
reasonable. However they want an additional $4k to 'merge' the
convert company B with the live company A db. That part seems steep.

What methods exist to 'import' data into Vantage? Company B on 4.41
only has about 20-30 user transactions per month. It looks like
hiring some temps and just re-keying everything from scratch might
be more cost effective.

Thanks,

Calvin

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...>
wrote:
>
> > How about general maintenance like maintaing users(currently
> > employees from company 'A' do all the processing for
company 'B'),
> > report formats, customizations, etc...
>
> In a single database:
>
> - You can easily write queries (BAQs) across companies
> - Single maintenance schdule
> - Single backup/restore
> - Patches/Upgrades on one database has only one data conversion
> - Bringing down one database shuts down the whole enterprise
> - BPMs/Customizations can be shared easily but may be harder to
write if
> they only apply to one company.
>
> In multiple databases:
>
> - Different time zones can have different maintenance schedules
(backup on
> DB1 at 6:00 EST while DB2 is at 6:00 PST
> - Must perform data conversions on separate databases
> - Multiple backup/restore processes
> - Combined company reporting more difficult
> - Customization is clearly separated requiring export/import to
keep in sync
>
> I'm not sure of the issues with Web Services. Two databases would
have to
> have two different listeners but a single database would have to
be company
> aware.
>
> HTH,
>
> Mark W.
>






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