V8 - Stock Status Report Problem

Yahoo Archive
21
Vista 6.x will run just fine on Windows 2003 server.



Thanks,



Jason Claggett

Microsoft Small Business Specialist

MCP #3856159

2W Technologies, LLC

317.578.2393

jason@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22
Vista 6.x will run just fine on Windows 2003 server.



Thanks,



Jason Claggett

Microsoft Small Business Specialist

MCP #3856159

2W Technologies, LLC

317.578.2393

jason@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23
Progress 9.1D will run within the JVM on Windows Server 2003 without any
problems. As for the processor requirement, that will depend upon the
number of users and the amount of data you transact during an average day of
processing. Assuming that your DB is of a relatively customary size for a
6.1 migration you would be well served with a Win 2K3 Standard
implementation running on 4GB or less with appropriate DB tuning. Multiple
processors or, better yet processor cores, will of course, improve your
systems performance. Ideally you should seek to cache as much of your DB as
possible into memory so as to remove other sub-systems from the IO
bottleneck, however, should that not be possible, look to the few vendors
who provide 2.5" 15K SAS drives for magnetic storage as your optimal
performance solutions.



Good luck with your migration,



Best regards,



Michael





Michael Barry
Aspacia Systems Inc
866.566.9600
312.803.0730 fax
<http://www.aspacia.com/> http://www.aspacia.com/

This email, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by
telephone and permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and
any printout thereof.




From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sue
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:40 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24
Progress 9.1D will run within the JVM on Windows Server 2003 without any
problems. As for the processor requirement, that will depend upon the
number of users and the amount of data you transact during an average day of
processing. Assuming that your DB is of a relatively customary size for a
6.1 migration you would be well served with a Win 2K3 Standard
implementation running on 4GB or less with appropriate DB tuning. Multiple
processors or, better yet processor cores, will of course, improve your
systems performance. Ideally you should seek to cache as much of your DB as
possible into memory so as to remove other sub-systems from the IO
bottleneck, however, should that not be possible, look to the few vendors
who provide 2.5" 15K SAS drives for magnetic storage as your optimal
performance solutions.



Good luck with your migration,



Best regards,



Michael





Michael Barry
Aspacia Systems Inc
866.566.9600
312.803.0730 fax
<http://www.aspacia.com/> http://www.aspacia.com/

This email, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by
telephone and permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and
any printout thereof.




From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sue
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:40 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25
Vista 6.x will run just fine on Windows 2003 server.



Thanks,



Jason Claggett

Microsoft Small Business Specialist

MCP #3856159

2W Technologies, LLC

317.578.2393

jason@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26
We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
27
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James
28
Sue,

You may be well advised to shop for Vantage 8.XXXX requirements. That
will be plenty for all your Vantage 6.1 needs and if you decide, you
will be ready for Vantage 8.XXXX (if they decide not to continue
"improving" it).

I have a quad Xeon server (way more than what they ask for my database
size, users, etc.) and staying in 6.1 until my bosses decide to spend
serious money.

Good Luck!

Mario E. Aguirre - IT Manager
Lakin General Corporation, Inc.

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Sue
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:40 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
29
I run Vantage 6.1 in NT4.0 (I forgot what patch - the latest was 6 I
think) and 2003 server without any problem for months at the time. I
only stop the database to patch the OS.

Good luck!

Mario E. Aguirre - IT Manager
Lakin General Corporation, Inc.

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of crypticsphere
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:55 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress



--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Sue" <siverson@...> wrote:
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>

Our server is windows 2000, so I would assume 2003 would be good as
well. Our server for 6.1 is currently on a p3 400 mhz with 500 ram.

James






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
30
We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business version of
Windows 2003 no problems at all.

Our specs are nothing special!

Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI drives in
RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.



We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1 GB in
size.

We have no issues with performance.



Stuart Noble
Thompson Meat Machinery
stuart@...
Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Sue
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
31
We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business version of
Windows 2003 no problems at all.

Our specs are nothing special!

Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI drives in
RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.



We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1 GB in
size.

We have no issues with performance.



Stuart Noble
Thompson Meat Machinery
stuart@...
Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Sue
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find my
minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will Windows
2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
32
Do you have a dual processor? and when you say RAID, can you tell me
whether what RAID type it is?

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart Noble" <stuart@...> wrote:
>
> We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business
version of
> Windows 2003 no problems at all.
>
> Our specs are nothing special!
>
> Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI
drives in
> RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.
>
>
>
> We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1
GB in
> size.
>
> We have no issues with performance.
>
>
>
> Stuart Noble
> Thompson Meat Machinery
> stuart@...
> Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Sue
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress
>
>
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find
my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will
Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
33
Were running fine here with RAID 10. I talked to Epicor before purchasing.
You can loose up to two drives without the system doing down or data loss.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Sue
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress


Do you have a dual processor? and when you say RAID, can you tell me
whether what RAID type it is?

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart Noble" <stuart@...> wrote:
>
> We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business
version of
> Windows 2003 no problems at all.
>
> Our specs are nothing special!
>
> Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI
drives in
> RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.
>
>
>
> We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1
GB in
> size.
>
> We have no issues with performance.
>
>
>
> Stuart Noble
> Thompson Meat Machinery
> stuart@...
> Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Sue
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress
>
>
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find
my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will
Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
34
Not to threadjack but with regard to losing drives....I had an interesting demo of an Equallogic SAN yesterday. A fully populated (14 drive) PeerStorage 100E iSCSI system running RAID 10 and 2GB Cache (protected by an internal 72 hour battery). Near the end of the demo we ran a small .MOV clip (trailer for some Disney movie) and the rep started yanking drives out randomly. By the time he got to the 8th drive the movie clip started slowing and finally halted. Reminded me a lot of the scene from 2001: A Space Odysey when HAL was shutdown. He then randomly replaced the drives and a minute later we restarted the clip. All during the demo he kept talking about putting the Vantage DB on the SAN.

Has anyone done this (6.x or 8.x) in a live Vantage environment? Is it "blessed" by Epicor? I understand the RAID concerns about committing writes to disk but this setup seemed pretty bullet proof. He claimed that with 3 Gigabit links to a dedicated backbone switch and multiple NICs in the Vantage server that performance would meet or exceed direct attached SCSI drives. My intention for the SAN has not been for Vantage but if there are benefits there I might consider it.

Thanks,
-Todd C.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul Lipham
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:48 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



Were running fine here with RAID 10. I talked to Epicor before purchasing.
You can loose up to two drives without the system doing down or data loss.

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]On Behalf Of
Sue
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress

Do you have a dual processor? and when you say RAID, can you tell me
whether what RAID type it is?

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Stuart Noble" <stuart@...> wrote:
>
> We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business
version of
> Windows 2003 no problems at all.
>
> Our specs are nothing special!
>
> Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI
drives in
> RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.
>
>
>
> We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1
GB in
> size.
>
> We have no issues with performance.
>
>
>
> Stuart Noble
> Thompson Meat Machinery
> stuart@...
> Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
Behalf
> Of Sue
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress
>
>
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find
my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will
Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>
>
>
>
>
> [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]
35
Just out of curiosity - did he yank two drives from the same mirror ;)

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Caughey" <caugheyt@...> wrote:
>
> Not to threadjack but with regard to losing drives....I had an
interesting demo of an Equallogic SAN yesterday. A fully populated
(14 drive) PeerStorage 100E iSCSI system running RAID 10 and 2GB
Cache (protected by an internal 72 hour battery). Near the end of
the demo we ran a small .MOV clip (trailer for some Disney movie) and
the rep started yanking drives out randomly. By the time he got to
the 8th drive the movie clip started slowing and finally halted.
Reminded me a lot of the scene from 2001: A Space Odysey when HAL was
shutdown. He then randomly replaced the drives and a minute later
we restarted the clip. All during the demo he kept talking about
putting the Vantage DB on the SAN.
>
> Has anyone done this (6.x or 8.x) in a live Vantage environment?
Is it "blessed" by Epicor? I understand the RAID concerns about
committing writes to disk but this setup seemed pretty bullet proof.
He claimed that with 3 Gigabit links to a dedicated backbone switch
and multiple NICs in the Vantage server that performance would meet
or exceed direct attached SCSI drives. My intention for the SAN has
not been for Vantage but if there are benefits there I might consider
it.
>
> Thanks,
> -Todd C.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Paul Lipham
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1
using Progress
>
>
>
> Were running fine here with RAID 10. I talked to Epicor before
purchasing.
> You can loose up to two drives without the system doing down or
data loss.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]
On Behalf Of
> Sue
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
> Progress
>
> Do you have a dual processor? and when you say RAID, can you tell me
> whether what RAID type it is?
>
> Sue
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Stuart Noble" <stuart@> wrote:
> >
> > We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business
> version of
> > Windows 2003 no problems at all.
> >
> > Our specs are nothing special!
> >
> > Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI
> drives in
> > RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1
> GB in
> > size.
> >
> > We have no issues with performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stuart Noble
> > Thompson Meat Machinery
> > stuart@
> > Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]
On
> Behalf
> > Of Sue
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
> Progress
> >
> >
> >
> > We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find
> my
> > minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> > mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will
> Windows
> > 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [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]
>
36
Hello,



Has anyone encountered the problem with the Stock Status Report where
when you select an "as of" date in the past it shows the current on hand
quantity?

I called Tech Support and they say it is a known problem with not
solution just yet. Just thought I would let people know.



We are on 8.03.304C



Joe Rojas

Information Technology Manager

Symmetry Medical TNCO

15 Colebrook Blvd

Whitman MA 02382

781-447-6661 x7506

jrojas@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
37
if you think the iSCSI stuff is fun you should check out the NetApp
appliances I saw at an angelbeat seminar last Wednesday.

http://communications.netapp.com/p/Network_Appliance/gs_camp_web?REF_SOURCE=
ggl|ntp_brand_name|k2955|s
<http://communications.netapp.com/p/Network_Appliance/gs_camp_web?REF_SOURCE
=ggl|ntp_brand_name|k2955|s>

Paul L.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Todd Caughey
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:42 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress



Not to threadjack but with regard to losing drives....I had an interesting
demo of an Equallogic SAN yesterday. A fully populated (14 drive)
PeerStorage 100E iSCSI system running RAID 10 and 2GB Cache (protected by an
internal 72 hour battery). Near the end of the demo we ran a small .MOV clip
(trailer for some Disney movie) and the rep started yanking drives out
randomly. By the time he got to the 8th drive the movie clip started slowing
and finally halted. Reminded me a lot of the scene from 2001: A Space Odysey
when HAL was shutdown. He then randomly replaced the drives and a minute
later we restarted the clip. All during the demo he kept talking about
putting the Vantage DB on the SAN.

Has anyone done this (6.x or 8.x) in a live Vantage environment? Is it
"blessed" by Epicor? I understand the RAID concerns about committing writes
to disk but this setup seemed pretty bullet proof. He claimed that with 3
Gigabit links to a dedicated backbone switch and multiple NICs in the
Vantage server that performance would meet or exceed direct attached SCSI
drives. My intention for the SAN has not been for Vantage but if there are
benefits there I might consider it.

Thanks,
-Todd C.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto:
vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]On Behalf Of
Paul Lipham
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:48 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress

Were running fine here with RAID 10. I talked to Epicor before purchasing.
You can loose up to two drives without the system doing down or data loss.

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto:
vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]On Behalf Of
Sue
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress

Do you have a dual processor? and when you say RAID, can you tell me
whether what RAID type it is?

Sue

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Stuart
Noble" <stuart@...> wrote:
>
> We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business
version of
> Windows 2003 no problems at all.
>
> Our specs are nothing special!
>
> Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI
drives in
> RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.
>
>
>
> We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1
GB in
> size.
>
> We have no issues with performance.
>
>
>
> Stuart Noble
> Thompson Meat Machinery
> stuart@...
> Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto:
vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
Behalf
> Of Sue
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
Progress
>
>
>
> We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find
my
> minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will
Windows
> 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
>
>
>
>
>
> [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]
38
Yes, as near as I could tell form the system status display I was also watching. But it may have been set up as RAID 50 (mirrored RAID 5 sets) which would have made it more resilient. For that matter the system also had a hardware RAID-DP (dual parity) option which may make it more like something you might call RAID 60. We started with a bare system and configured it but bounced around on the setup between discussing RAID 10 vs. 50. I may have been confused about where we ended up. The 14 250GB drives netted out about 2TB of usable space. But I am pretty sure he had no idea how the data was spread out between the drives or which ones to pull. He pulled drives from one end to the other and sometimes 2 (but not 3) adjacent drives.
-Todd C.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of bw2868bond
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:46 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using Progress



Just out of curiosity - did he yank two drives from the same mirror ;)

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Todd Caughey" <caugheyt@...> wrote:
>
> Not to threadjack but with regard to losing drives....I had an
interesting demo of an Equallogic SAN yesterday. A fully populated
(14 drive) PeerStorage 100E iSCSI system running RAID 10 and 2GB
Cache (protected by an internal 72 hour battery). Near the end of
the demo we ran a small .MOV clip (trailer for some Disney movie) and
the rep started yanking drives out randomly. By the time he got to
the 8th drive the movie clip started slowing and finally halted.
Reminded me a lot of the scene from 2001: A Space Odysey when HAL was
shutdown. He then randomly replaced the drives and a minute later
we restarted the clip. All during the demo he kept talking about
putting the Vantage DB on the SAN.
>
> Has anyone done this (6.x or 8.x) in a live Vantage environment?
Is it "blessed" by Epicor? I understand the RAID concerns about
committing writes to disk but this setup seemed pretty bullet proof.
He claimed that with 3 Gigabit links to a dedicated backbone switch
and multiple NICs in the Vantage server that performance would meet
or exceed direct attached SCSI drives. My intention for the SAN has
not been for Vantage but if there are benefits there I might consider
it.
>
> Thanks,
> -Todd C.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]On
Behalf Of Paul Lipham
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1
using Progress
>
>
>
> Were running fine here with RAID 10. I talked to Epicor before
purchasing.
> You can loose up to two drives without the system doing down or
data loss.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]
On Behalf Of
> Sue
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
> Progress
>
> Do you have a dual processor? and when you say RAID, can you tell me
> whether what RAID type it is?
>
> Sue
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Stuart Noble" <stuart@> wrote:
> >
> > We are running 6.1 and Progress 9.1 D on the small business
> version of
> > Windows 2003 no problems at all.
> >
> > Our specs are nothing special!
> >
> > Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 Gig of Ram!! With 2 15000 rpm SCSI
> drives in
> > RAID, which configuration I can't tell you.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have 12 users, 6 Data collection users, and our Db is about 1
> GB in
> > size.
> >
> > We have no issues with performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stuart Noble
> > Thompson Meat Machinery
> > stuart@
> > Ph: + 61 7 3803 6643
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com]
On
> Behalf
> > Of Sue
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:40 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Hardware Requirements for Vantage 6.1 using
> Progress
> >
> >
> >
> > We may be moving our 6.1 version to a new server - I cannot find
> my
> > minimum requirements except that we need a dual processor with
> > mirrored drives (not RAID 5). Do you guys recall? Also, will
> Windows
> > 2003 work with 6.1 and Progress 9.1D?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [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]
39
Is this also a problem with the 8.0 Version? We are having a problem
tieing out the Stock Status Report successfully to our General
Ledger.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Rojas" <jrojas@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Has anyone encountered the problem with the Stock Status Report
where
> when you select an "as of" date in the past it shows the current
on hand
> quantity?
>
> I called Tech Support and they say it is a known problem with not
> solution just yet. Just thought I would let people know.
>
>
>
> We are on 8.03.304C
>
>
>
> Joe Rojas
>
> Information Technology Manager
>
> Symmetry Medical TNCO
>
> 15 Colebrook Blvd
>
> Whitman MA 02382
>
> 781-447-6661 x7506
>
> jrojas@...
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
40
I don't know for sure.

We discovered the problem because of the same GL issue you are having.



Joe Rojas

Information Technology Manager

Symmetry Medical TNCO

15 Colebrook Blvd

Whitman MA 02382

781-447-6661 x7506

jrojas@...



________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of vanebewe
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:47 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: V8 - Stock Status Report Problem



Is this also a problem with the 8.0 Version? We are having a problem
tieing out the Stock Status Report successfully to our General
Ledger.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Joe
Rojas" <jrojas@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Has anyone encountered the problem with the Stock Status Report
where
> when you select an "as of" date in the past it shows the current
on hand
> quantity?
>
> I called Tech Support and they say it is a known problem with not
> solution just yet. Just thought I would let people know.
>
>
>
> We are on 8.03.304C
>
>
>
> Joe Rojas
>
> Information Technology Manager
>
> Symmetry Medical TNCO
>
> 15 Colebrook Blvd
>
> Whitman MA 02382
>
> 781-447-6661 x7506
>
> jrojas@...
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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