Progress vs. SQL

Yahoo Archive
1
Hi Pim,
I seem to remember reading that in the hardware sizing guide as well - but it was long ago. I didn't take much notice of it then, and still don't buy it. Can you think of a single reason why that would be the case? There is no question that a comparable native Progress database will be quicker - all other things being equal - but it just doesn't make sense to think that fast ethernet to a remote SQL instance should outperform a local SQL instance _if_ the host is adequately resourced.

If your concerns is that SQL, installed with vanilla settings, will always steal too many of the available resources on a given machine thereby starving the app servers, you may have a point BUT I will say that it is an issue which can be managed.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Pim Zandbergen <P.Zandbergen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21-7-2010 6:29, Alex Fiedler wrote:
> > Some advice: you should run the SQL db on the same box as the app server
>
> That is not Epicor's advice. Read the Hardware Sizing Guide at
> https://epicweb.epicor.com/resources/MRCCustomers/Epicor905HardwareSizingGuide.pdf
>
> According to the guide, appserver and SQL Server on box should only be
> on the same box
> for installations < 5 users. For larger installations, a direct (ie
> non-switched) ethernet
> connection is recommended. I've even read recommendations for 10 GB
> fiber interconnections.
>
> This suggests there is a serious bottleneck in Progress to SQL Server
> connections.
> Native Progress databases don't have this problem as they are connected via
> shared memory to the appserver processes.
>
> Pim
>
2
Just a general question - we are on Vantage 6.10 wanting to make the leap to 9.05 and need to decide which route to take in regards to SQL vs. Progress. Can anybody throw some pro's and con's out there for either or both? Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed before but I am new to this discussion group.
3
Greg, yes, this has been discussed and beat to death on multiple
occasions.



For the record, I'm pro-SQL. Love it, love it, LOVE IT.



There are others who are vehemently against SQL. These are usually the
less intelligent members of this group. (LOL!.... just joking, of
course).



I would first suggest that you search the forum archives @
http://groups.yahoo.com <http://groups.yahoo.com/>



You will find many threads listing pros and cons, opinions and facts.



If after searching you have more questions feel free to email me
directly or re-email the group.



If you are SQL savvy (and not Progress) then the answer is simple: SQL



If you enjoy having "data freedom" and easy insight to raw data then SQL
is your choice.













Vic





________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of greg.middleton11
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:39 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Progress vs. SQL





Just a general question - we are on Vantage 6.10 wanting to make the
leap to 9.05 and need to decide which route to take in regards to SQL
vs. Progress. Can anybody throw some pro's and con's out there for
either or both? Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed before but I am
new to this discussion group.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
And the quick con against SQL is the cost factor!







M. Manasa Reddy

manasa@... <mailto:manasa@...>

800.852.2325

630.806.2000 ofc

630.806.2001 fax

www.weldcoa.com

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Vic Drecchio
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:06 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Cc: greg.middleton@...
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Progress vs. SQL





Greg, yes, this has been discussed and beat to death on multiple
occasions.

For the record, I'm pro-SQL. Love it, love it, LOVE IT.

There are others who are vehemently against SQL. These are usually the
less intelligent members of this group. (LOL!.... just joking, of
course).

I would first suggest that you search the forum archives @
http://groups.yahoo.com <http://groups.yahoo.com/>

You will find many threads listing pros and cons, opinions and facts.

If after searching you have more questions feel free to email me
directly or re-email the group.

If you are SQL savvy (and not Progress) then the answer is simple: SQL

If you enjoy having "data freedom" and easy insight to raw data then SQL
is your choice.

Vic

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
Of greg.middleton11
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:39 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Progress vs. SQL

Just a general question - we are on Vantage 6.10 wanting to make the
leap to 9.05 and need to decide which route to take in regards to SQL
vs. Progress. Can anybody throw some pro's and con's out there for
either or both? Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed before but I am
new to this discussion group.

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5
I'm typically in favor of seeing companies use Progress as it's easier
and less expensive to install and maintain.

With that said my answer usually is:
If you have someone with expertise in SQL in-house who will benefit from
having the SQL backend for reporting, and knows how to administer a SQL
database then go SQL. Otherwise go with Progress.

Brian Johnson -- Epi-Center <http://epi-ctr.com>
Director of Technical Services | direct: 413-531-2859

On 07/08/2010 02:39 PM, greg.middleton11 wrote:
>
> Just a general question - we are on Vantage 6.10 wanting to make the
> leap to 9.05 and need to decide which route to take in regards to SQL
> vs. Progress. Can anybody throw some pro's and con's out there for
> either or both? Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed before but I
> am new to this discussion group.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6
Good counsel with a couple of additional notes:

Pro's for going with SQL:

SQL resources are plentiful and will be increasingly available, Progress is
a fading picture. SQL DBA's are available, Progress DBA's are impossible to
find.

SQL tools are cheaper and easier to use than Progress Tools...the Progress
equivalent of SQL Studio does not come with the product..you have to live
with PROENV commands unless you spend the money on a Progress tool kit.

E9 report writing is more reliant on VB than Progress language.

SQL as a technology will be commercially viable for the foreseeable future.

New company acquisitions or possible sale of the Parent is enhanced by the
SQL based applications: Company Sale or new company Acquisitions are not
facilitated by Progress use (vs. SQL use).....this has an effect on net
worth.


Con's

Epicor develops in Progress 1st and converts result to SQL often resulting
in sub-optimized or inoperable functionality in the SQL version of the
application.

Epicor knowledge of SQL is abysmal resulting in poorly designed and
implemented SQL upgrades

Support for Vantage/E9 problems in SQL take forever to solve relative to the
Progress versions of the same problem. In some instances problem resolution
in a progress Instance will never be delivered in a SQL instance.

Not many SQL users exist in the Vantage/E9 forum resulting in a lower level
of assistance as compared to Progress users.

Multi-company SQL....you are on your own with SQL on this one...don't look
to Epicor to be able to help you with this problem set....they don't
maintain a support instance for this.


Here is the way I approach it: If you can't afford SAP, go with
Epicor/Progress if the following conditions exist:
Small user population (25-200)
No in-house technical expertise (standard IT staff of 2-5)
No in-house SQL expertise
No in-house Progress expertise
Budgeted reliance on Epicor (this is a big ticket item):
Vantage/E9 application consulting (app
customizations, training & Crystal)
Database maintenance/troubleshooting consulting
Vantage/E9 annual Support
Vantage/E9 Application Modifications
Development costs
Annual maintenance
No plans for additional company acquisitions
No plans to sell the company


Robert Carlson
Flanagan Industries
bcarlson@...

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Brian Johnson
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:43 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Cc: greg.middleton11
Subject: Re: [Vantage] Progress vs. SQL

I'm typically in favor of seeing companies use Progress as it's easier
and less expensive to install and maintain.

With that said my answer usually is:
If you have someone with expertise in SQL in-house who will benefit from
having the SQL backend for reporting, and knows how to administer a SQL
database then go SQL. Otherwise go with Progress.

Brian Johnson -- Epi-Center <http://epi-ctr.com>
Director of Technical Services | direct: 413-531-2859

On 07/08/2010 02:39 PM, greg.middleton11 wrote:
>
> Just a general question - we are on Vantage 6.10 wanting to make the
> leap to 9.05 and need to decide which route to take in regards to SQL
> vs. Progress. Can anybody throw some pro's and con's out there for
> either or both? Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed before but I
> am new to this discussion group.
>
>


[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
7
Greenfield E9 implementations in Australia today are mostly SQL. Only if a customer has a strong preference for Progress, will Epicor sell E9/Progress. I don't know anywhere this is the case.

Upgrades from V8/Progress are still usually to E9/Progress although one or two are going V8/Progress -> E9/SQL.

That said, the need for Progress 4GL skills will probably never go away. There's so much site-specific 4GL out there in custom BPMs written by partners and customers, I don't think Epicor will ever be able to rewrite the middleware in .NET much as they might like to.

The gateway to SQL is mature and robust. The performance penalty is minimal. It is terrific to have SQL Management Studio available for so many reasons. Some advice: you should run the SQL db on the same box as the app server. If you MUST have a dedicated database server box, then it is _critical_ the schema holder databases are local to the app server. If your app servers have to do client-server connections to the schema holder databases, your performance will be terrible. If it's all local, your performance hit is barely noticable. For some reports, performance might even be better as the query execution plans for SQL are far smarter. In fact I expect that many of the indexes on tables are superfluous in a SQL implementation and could perhaps be dropped for an OLTP performance gain.


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "greg.middleton11" <greg.middleton@...> wrote:
>
> Just a general question - we are on Vantage 6.10 wanting to make the leap to 9.05 and need to decide which route to take in regards to SQL vs. Progress. Can anybody throw some pro's and con's out there for either or both? Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed before but I am new to this discussion group.
>
8
On 21-7-2010 6:29, Alex Fiedler wrote:
> Some advice: you should run the SQL db on the same box as the app server

That is not Epicor's advice. Read the Hardware Sizing Guide at
https://epicweb.epicor.com/resources/MRCCustomers/Epicor905HardwareSizingGuide.pdf

According to the guide, appserver and SQL Server on box should only be
on the same box
for installations < 5 users. For larger installations, a direct (ie
non-switched) ethernet
connection is recommended. I've even read recommendations for 10 GB
fiber interconnections.

This suggests there is a serious bottleneck in Progress to SQL Server
connections.
Native Progress databases don't have this problem as they are connected via
shared memory to the appserver processes.

Pim