D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows



  • 1. D3(NT) vs D3/AIX - your thoughts
    Our business uses an enterprise supply chain management app that runs on D3/AIX. The app has worked well for years, but the AIX server is aging and is being considered for replacement. The IBM VAR is quoting a replacement AIX server that is thousands more than a similar size/speed Win server. It also seems that there is more development and tools available for D3(NT) than D3/AIX, that D3/AIX just isn't getting the attention from Raining Data (among others). I'm considering jumping to the Dark Side (Win), buying a D3(NT) server, converting to D3(NT), etc. Your thoughts - good, bad, and assuming . . no one is indifferent on this subject. Thanks.
  • 2. D3 Linux - Large file - very slow restore
    I have a very large Tracking file with modulo of 437909 and it has been running for 6 hours on an ACCOUNT-RESTORE. This was sized by F-RESIZE before the restore so the size should be right. The file has millions of records with an average size of 200. It tracks every change to costs or prices made in the system for a multi-store operation, so this file will continue to grow. I have thought of creating subfiles by month, but then listing from TCL is not really usable anymore and writing programs around that scheme is a pain. Short of purging data from the file, which is an option but I don't want to do it because it is good data, what strategy should I use to make this file more manageable? Steve

D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby ddspell-m3 » Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:48:52 GMT

Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going from D3 Linux to D3


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Tony Gravagno » Sun, 09 Jul 2006 06:57:35 GMT

I might be forgetting something but here's my view:

Both platforms are equally capable but D3 NT (Windows) does support
RPC calls which are not supported in *nix.  This is only of value if
you're using the D3 Class Library, which IMO shouldn't be used anymore
now that there are much more capable connectivity solutions available.

For personal use it can't be easier to use D3NT right on the same
system you use for everything else - no need to fire up a separate
box/OS just for the database.

Many sites have migrated from D3 NT to D3 Linux for reasons including
the following:
- stability
- conflicts between the VME and FSI
- indexing issues in the FSI
- file pointer caching issues in the FSI
- frame loss in the VME
- issues with sockets

I believe D3NT v7.5 addresses some or all of these concerns, so the
choice of platform is largely philosophical or dependent on your
site-specific needs.

D3 Linux also supports rebuilding the D3 executable to include custom
functionality (linking in new functionality into BASIC, much like is
done in jBASE or OpenQM).  D3NT technically supports this as well but
I don't think anyone does it.  There isn't enough documentation or
warm fuzzies to feel good about doing this sort of thing.  If anyone
has done this with D3NT I'd like to trade notes.

D3 *nix also supports user-written assembler modes.  I've seen docs
that make it seem like D3NT could as well but I don't know anyone who
has done this successfully.  Mark?

Does that help?

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby ddspell-m3 » Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:42:34 GMT

Thanks Tony.  What about performance?  Which O/S would help D3 achieve
better performance?


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Tony Gravagno » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:11:41 GMT

I haven't compared platform performance in years.  No DBMS operates in
a vacuum.  Factors that affect performance include:
-RAM allocation
-whether you're running D3 Linux in the file system or in raw volumes
-disk fragmentation in NT
-other OS services and user activities running in addition to D3

All things being equal, my instinct says D3Linux would be a faster
platform.  Then again, I don't know if there are optimizations that
I'm unaware of which would allow D3NT to run faster over Win2003.  I
tend to think of D3NT as being a platform of convenience because it's
on the same system as many Windows utilities that I tend to integrate
with, and I don't need to have another OS running just to support the
DBMS.  D3NT can be upgraded on the same OS year after year without
changing the OS, whereas D3Linux is built over specific kernels so the
OS must be completely reinstalled on an almost yearly basis - that's

Let's back up.  What is it that you need to do?
- Are you doing development on a PC?
- Are you supporting a local office of 20 users?
- Are you supporting an extranet with 200 users?
- Are you supporting an internet site with hundreds or thousands of
people requiring near simultaneous access?
- Do you find yourself creating and deleting a lot of ad-hoc files and
accounts or is the environment fairly stable.
- How much data in GB are we talking about?
- Do you write communications tools in C, VB, Perl, or other
- Are you philosophically a Linux guy?  Do you prefer Apache to IIS or
have any other political reasons to swing toward one platform or away
fom another?  This is quite often the determining factor, not the
technology itself.

It's always better to approach technology from the business
perspective.  It's like a carpenter saying he needs to secure two
beams of a given width - this is a business statement.  Compare that
to "which is better, nails, staples, or glue?"  The same applies for
choice of languages, web tools, etc..  (Sorry Chandru) Choose the tool
that suits the job that you're going to do.

These articles may be of interest:

Any of that help?

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Glen B » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:15:37 GMT

"Tony Gravagno" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

Sorry T, but you're wrong there! I've been running D3 on the same stable
kernel and Linux distro for many years now. Actually, I've only upgraded
once in the past 8 years. That was from D3/Linux 7.2 to 7.4 for the annoying
file flushing bug that was in 7.2. I have no problem running an older
kernel, and you know what a tech groupie I am. I prefer to run an older
kernel, on enterprise systems, since it has more "miles" on it and I trust
that it won't just blindly bomb on me one day. I can't say that I have been
able to use one specific Windows version on other systems for that long of a
period. You only need to upgrade Linux kernels to take advantage of new
kernel-only features. The kernel add-on modules that have newer kernel
version requirements are usually things like additional file system
capabilities and various new(bleeding edge) hardware technology. On Linux,
compiling the system features into the kernel makes the system _much_ faster
and also eliminates stability issues with module loading. If you don't want
to deal with a kernel upgrade, then don't upgrade the O/S. There is no
reason to, unless you have to have capabilities that are only available in a
newer kernel. If you want new features in a newer release of D3, which just
happens to require a specific kernel for commercial support, then you have
no choice but to upgrade the O/S. That isn't a Linux upgrade or kernel age
issue - it's a RD software requirement. I know many people running D3 on 3
or 4 different distros of Linux with radically different kernel versions. Of
course, they don't pay for RD support. D3 is still happy as long as the
library dependencies are met and you build a reliable box to run it on.

I agree with this to some extent. If it is a small installation and a
non-techie person is going to be managing the server then I'd suggest a
Windows release. If a tech-savvy person is going to be managing it, then the
Linux version is going to give you a lot more bang for the buck. You don't
need to be a Linux guru to setup and run a Linux server. Linux has come a
long way since Slackware 3.0 and its manual configuration steps. Once
properly configured, the server will run by itself for years without any
touching. That's not to say that you shouldn't check on its status regularly
and review logs. :P


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Tony Gravagno » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:47:31 GMT

Another response after 1am that I'm sure to regret...)

"Glen B" wrote:

Uh, blindly bomb on you like a new and improved Linux upgrade?!?
There's an unusual statement. Just kidding, I know what you mean but
man is that door wide open...

D3 is built and certified on specific kernels, and libs built into
distros are built around the kernel. D3 relies on these libs. So as
far as D3 is concerned, the underpinnings "should" only be those which
RD has built and certified their product to run over. If you have had
luck with another distro or a DIY "we don't need no stinkin distro"
environment, great for you. But there are no guarantees whatsoever
that this will be stable. This is a commercial database, it's not
some FC5 hack project. The number of people qualified to build and
maintain this environment you speak of are few and far between (kudos
to ya bud, seriously!) and running D3 (or most MV DBMS products) on a
custom platform is a "run it at your own risk" endeavor. Neither RD
nor anyone else (that I know of) will support D3 over a non-certified

Your experience and mine balance then. Windows XP came out in 2001
and I haven't used anything else for a desktop since then. That means
I've been running D3 7.1.x to 7.4.x on the exact same OS for 5 years.
There are people here who are still running D3NT on the same Windows
2000 that they installed 6 years ago, having upgraded D3 from v7.0 to
7.4.x. I defy anyone to make the same claim for any D3 Linux

(I'm sorting of going off here but...)
Sigh, some applications are compiled using a specific version of GCC
and some releases of GCC only work in a given environment. Therefore,
if you want to use the programs in question you must be running over
the latest kernel. Of course you'll say you can build everything from
source, including GCC, for whatever environment you want. There are a
tiny handful of people who will even attempt this sort of thing - and
for those who have the time, I tip my coffee cup. God help anyone who
doesn't know the difference between GCC 2.95.2 and 2.95.3 (yes those
are real release numbers) if they're going to do this sort of thing.
Let's not take that 1% and make it seem like this how the normal base
of Linux users work. Bottom line for mere mortals is that you're
going to upgrade the kernel and everything else when you want some new
release of program X. And since most people aren't able to upgrade a
Linux box (except for small point releases that come through yum,
etc), that means a complete re-install.

That was my original point. This had nothing to do with Linux on it's
own. I was specifically focusing on requirements for D3, not
re-hashing the wonders of Linux. For other DBMS products this might
not apply, but we aren't talking about others...

Very true. And you've pointed out before that the RedHat distro on
which D3 is certified isn't representative of Linux in general. But
since D3 is only supported over RH then for this thread I'm sticking
to the limitations of this specific environment. I'll maintain that
if you try to run a new kernel with old libs or vice versa, all hell
breaks loose in RH, and D3 is very sensitive about only running in the
certified environment.

Off to the side for a moment, this advice is neither useful nor
appropriate for this particular thread. What I mean is we have a noob
here who is looking for a platform to

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Ross Ferris » Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:11:56 GMT

What is the motivation for even considering such a move?

I'd stay with D3/Linux EVERY time! Whilst D3/Windows 7.5 may address
some issues in the future, today D3/Windows lacks features like
transaction logging, indices don't work properly in the FSI, the FSI
appears to be "fragile", programs can behave differently in the VME &
FSI, OSFI has "problems" that don't exist in D3/Linux, the "limited"
monitoring capabilities of D3 are even further linited on D3/Windows
... the list goes on.

I recently visited a site where I had to reboot their D3/Linux server -
uptime was 1473 days ! Tell me again why you are contemplating this

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby (latimerp) » Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:03:46 GMT

I agree Ross. I have can only think of 3 reasons to take down a
D3/Linux system.

1. Failed Hardware - Tape, CD-RW, NIC replacement.
2. Moving the system.
3. Hurricane (And this is just a precaution) as they usually come
through just fine if they aren't soggy and don't smell like smoke.

A couple years back I think Count D. said they had to move away from
Windows because the people in charge of the system liked to load DOOM
so they could play after hours . Not a pleasant thought. To the inept
at least they will respect Linux as a *Server*. Not as likely true for
a Windows machine.

My 2, Patrick <;=)

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Glen B » Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:21:08 GMT

"Tony Gravagno" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

And as I said, non of them pay for support. They also don't expect help
from RD when they upgrade. However, most of them have been running on the
same release of D3 and Linux for years now with no problems and no rebooting
at all. In this case, it's along the lines of "don't knock it, unless you've
outgrown it." With multi-hundred user sites running on Linux, I can't see a
reason for any small to mid-size firm needing to upgrade any release of D3
on any version of Linux. Of course, if you want software options that only
exist in the newest release then you have no choice but to upgrade. The same
is true for any of the platforms and there are always O/S issues when you
jump more than a minor revision in a product as O/S demanding as D3.

Fair enough. I don't run Windows on servers, so I mainly see the trends
that Microsoft forces on OEM computer vendors. :P

I love Win2K. I prefer it over WinXP Pro for servers, just from a stability
standpoint. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to buy now! If you want to
setup a new server, you don't have many choices other than XP and 2003. On
the flip side, I can install an old Linux release at any point and never
think twice about licensing problems. :)

What distro did you have these problems on? I've never had GCC dependency
issues on Debian. I have had project conflicts, though. That's no different
than downloading a Windows application compiled for SP4 and you can't run
SP4 due to another application that crashes with the SP4 updates. :) 6 to
half-a-dozen on both sides there.

That totally depends on the distro! Some distros are worse at approving
packages and forcing dependency corrections than others. You almost need an
act of congress to publish a package on Debian's main APT source list. Now,
if you go to Joe's Code Shack and download his .deb package file, don't
curse out Linux when it conflicts with 10 packages and corrupts your apt
database. You're totally at fault for not checking what stuff his software
is linked to and reading his requirements page to make sure that
non-standard package install is kosher. The same applies to downloading an
MSI that replaces system DLLs with custom ones and corrupts the registry.
I've had that happen a few times and it's not a pretty sight! 6 to
half-a-dozen again.

So, I can upgrade D3/NT at any point, and for any version, without having
to upgrade any parts of Windows or install anything new? I don't run it, so
I'm really asking - I'm not being sarcastic.

Yes. RH is a crappy distro and I'll be glad when I am forced to upgrade to
something else. I'll also be terrified to have to touch that machine!

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer. The people who run non-certified O/S's
under D3 know what they are doing and don't need RD for support.

To be honest, I've never had that issue when running Debian stable. Granted
that release is based on an older(compared to current) kernel, there are
still software and security updates being done for various software
applications on a regular basis. Nothing makes it to stable certification
until it's been run over in the road millions of times. However, there's
always room for improvement and even more security :P
I have mostly had those kinds of problems on Red Hat, which is now
extinct. In general, and outs

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby ddspell-m3 » Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:38:23 GMT


1. Standardizing on one O/S.
2. Reduce or eliminate the need for multi-platform training.
3. To gain confidence that the system is under control.

For instance, right now I need to expand the size of the D3 file system
(database?) which will require me to use a utility that I have very
little experience.  I believe the command in Linux is divvy, but it was
been about 3 years since I did it last.  My uneasiness is that if I
screw it up, I don't know if I can recover.  I have backups, but I've
never done a restore from scratch.  I guess I should just grab a
machine and throw Linux on it and try a restore, but the problem with
this is that I don't have a macine with an identical configuration.  I
guess this points out the need to buy two servers, albeit with less
disk and redundancy for the second one, when one buys a new server so
that a suitable test environment exists.

I would hire a D3 expert, but I don't know where to find one locally
(Dallas, TX).

So you see, if I was on Windows, I don't think my concerns above would
be an issue.


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Glen B » Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:18:11 GMT

 Install an additional drive, create a partition and mark it as type "d3" 
using fdisk. Then, add another disk statement to the pick0 file. Shutdown 
D3, reload, and *poof* you have more storage. You don't need to reload D3 or 
perform any kind of Linux magical madness. An easier way would be to re-run 
the D3_Setup application that should still be on your box. Go into the disk 
menu and add an existing parition. You should shut D3 down before you do 
that, though. If you want help doing the manual edit, post your current 
/usr/lib/pick/pick0 here and the size of the drive you want to add.


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby ddspell-m3 » Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:03:35 GMT

Thanks, but I believe there is some unused (unallocated) disk space in
the current configuration.

# df -k
Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6              8064272   2632372   5022248  35% /
/dev/sda2                46668      3868     40391   9% /boot
/dev/sda5              7060276   6305364    396264  95% /u

This is everything that is in use.  I don't know how to tell about
unused space.

# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 8841 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes

   Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1             1         4     32098+  de  Dell Utility
/dev/sda2   *         5        10     48195   83  Linux
/dev/sda3            11      8841  70935007+   5  Extended
/dev/sda5            11       903   7172991   83  Linux
/dev/sda6           904      1923   8193118+  83  Linux
/dev/sda7          1924      2178   2048256   82  Linux swap
/dev/sda8          2179      3326   9221278+  d3  Unknown

If I understand this correctly, I have 7 partitions defined.  I think I
have 3 hard drives in a RAID 5 configuration.  Each drive is 36 GB, so
that gives a total usuable space of 72 GB, right?

Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby ddspell-m3 » Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:07:24 GMT

Here's my pick0 file:
# /usr/lib/pick/pick0
# Copyright (c) PICK Systems 2001. All rights reserved
# Fri, February 13, 2004
name LEW
nice 0
user pick
core 1500000 10
npibs 128
nphts 32
basic 8192
brkchr 1c
escchr 1b
absbase 18
abssize 708
abslock on
blkfid 2
flush 10
dwqnum 256
disk /dev/sda8 0 9221278 # disk 0
tape /dev/fd0H1440 500 f lq  # tape 0
tape /dev/fd0H720 500 f ld  # tape 1
tape /dev/nst0 16384 d ls  # tape 2
tape /usr/lib/pick/ab 500 p lx  # tape 3
tape /usr/lib/pick/dt 500 p lx  # tape 4
tape /D3install/patch 500 f lx  # tape 5
tape /u/backups/bkup1 1000000 p lx  # tape 6
tape /u/backups/bkup2 1000000 p lx  # tape 7
tape /u/backups/bkup3 1000000 p lx  # tape 8
tape /u/backups/bkup4 1000000 p lx  # tape 9
tape /u/backups/bkup5 1000000 p lx  # tape 10


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Glen B » Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:06:08 GMT

 Yes. Usable RAID5 space = total of all drives of same size minus the size 
of one drive. It looks like you have sda8 assigned to D3. sda2, sda5, and 
sda6 are all ext2 or ext3 file systems mounted to Linux. You have a virtual 
sda3 parition split into 5,6,7, and 8 logicals. You have no free space to 
add to D3. If you need more space, you will need to:

A)  Review your RAID controller manual and determine if you can add a new 
drive to the array without rebuilding it. Most hardware RAID controllers 
will allow this with no headache at all. Just plug it, boot it, and go into 
the RAID BIOS config. Normally, you can select the new drive and choose to 
add it to an existing array. That's it. Some controllers will want to 
re-stripe the array before you reboot. Others will do it in the background 
automatically, as long as you don't power the machine off.

B) add another pair of drives, if you have space on the controller and set 
them up as RAID0. Then you can just add that array (sda9 or sda10 probably) 
to D3 as a new disk statement without touching the existing Linux install.

C) Just add an IDE or SATA drive and move /u to that new partition. I don't 
know what's on /u so I'm assuming it's not critical. If it is, you're back 
to A. If it's not, you can re-use sda5 as a new partition for D3.

 Keep in mind that if you add a drive larger than 36GB to your existing 
array, you will only get 36GB out of it. RAID5 requires identical drive 
sizes and the controller will typically enforce that, regardless of the real 
drive geometry. If you need 80GB more storage, then you will need to add 3 
more 36GB drives.


Re: D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows

Postby Glen B » Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:21:54 GMT

<grumble>  I should have done the math. You have 44GB free in sda3 for 
logicals. You don't need to do any of what I posted. :P Well.. that is if 
44GB is enough space for D3.  Just add a new parition(s) using fdisk and tag 
it/them type "d3". I don't setup partitions larger than 2GB for D3, but 
yours looks to have a 9GB partition already. If you want me to do it, I'll 
need an SSH login to the box and root access.

nojunk_glen@"mvdevcentral dot com"


Similar Threads:

1.D3 Windows 2003 Vs D3 Linux

Has anyone any experience regarding the reliability of D3 Linux vs. D3 Windows 2003?

Please pull no punches.

2.Write DOS files on local HD from D3 session on remote D3/linux server

"Ricky" wrote > Isn't there a simple way in Basic to write a DOS file to 
the LOCAL hard drive of the Workstation in D3/linux?
Assuming your 'workstation' is not the d3 server, there is no such feature.
Piclan can do that, but why put up with AP/PRO for it?

Of course, numerous workarounds present themselves if you're on a network drop
to the server instead of serial.

3.Help! D3 NT to D3 Linux

I did an account save from a d3 nt system, ported it to another xp platform at a samba share, set up a type=floppy density=pseudo pointer on a d3 linux system to point to it and attemped to restore the account. The dialog is below. 

Anyone see this problem before? I think it's related to some incompatability issues between d3 nt file pointers and d3 linux. 

:account-restore cdaweb
account name on tape:cdaweb
1 > FSI:cdaweb 0,7
'FSI:cdaweb' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > bp-jw 0,1
'bp-jw' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > bp-jw > bp-jw 0,31
'bp-jw' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > VerIndxLog 0,1
'VerIndxLog' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > VerIndxLog > VerIndxLog 0,101
'VerIndxLog' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > bp 0,7
'bp' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > bp > bp 0,7
'bp' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > bp > includes 0,1
'includes' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwOrdersPending 0,1
'cwOrdersPending' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwOrdersPending > cwOrdersPending 0,1
'cwOrdersPending' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > Install 0,1
'Install' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > Install > dicts 0,1
'dicts' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > Install > w3apps 0,7
'w3apps' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > Install > patches 0,3
'patches' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > Install > w3html 0,13
'w3html' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwState 0,1
'cwState' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwState > cwState 0,3
'cwState' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > jack 0,1
'jack' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > jack > jack 0,1
'jack' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwLog 0,1
'cwLog' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwLog > cwLog 0,7
'cwLog' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cdaweb-bp-m53 0,31
'cdaweb-bp-m53' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cdaweb-bp-m53 > cdaweb-bp-m53 0,31
'cdaweb-bp-m53' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwControl 0,1
'cwControl' is not a file name
1 > FSI:cdaweb > cwControl > cwControl 0,3
'cwControl' is not a file name
Restore from incremental save tape (y/n)? n
Restore from transaction log tape (y/n)? n
restore completed

4.[OT] Switching from D3/NT to D3/Linux

"Tony Gravagno" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
> I'd like to comment on the material that Adam asked us to ignore, but
> he of course knows that we won't.
> I'm not a Win32 freak or a Linux fanatic, I'm somewhere in the middle,
> trying to use the tools available to do the jobs that need to be done.
> If Linux were ready for common desktop usage it would be there, but
> it's not.  If Microsoft were as bad as people say it is, it would be
> gone, but it's not.  I've used Visual Studio for VB4,5,6 and I find it
> easy to do my development.  I also use VS.NET or Borland's C#Builder
> for C#, ASP.NET, etc.  There is a lot of software that is still
> available exclusively for Windows and I enjoy using it.  I make no
> apologies for the technology I use because they all work within the
> same standards of horrible or excellent quality that the IT world
> accepts today for every platform out there.
> All of this pushing for Linux as though it has all the answers is
> getting on my nerves because it's not as easy to work with yet as some
> make it out to be, and the developer tools aren't as sophisticated as
> people say they are.  Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, remember I
> said I'm in the middle here.  But I'm not fond of writing code with
> emacs or vi, gcc doesn't get me excited, and I'm sick of running RPM,
> CPAN, and 'man' for everything I need.  I write code in VB, C#, and
> occasionally Perl and Java, not C/C++, Delphi/Kylix, or Tcl/Tk.  We're
> getting closer to the point where I can code using my languages of
> choice in either environment, but we're not quite there yet (with
> Komodo, Mono, and some other tools I'm about half-way there).  The
> worlds are still too dis-similar, and it's not reasonable to expect
> people to jump from one to the next.
> I also find the various X11 environments take much more effort to
> tweek than Windows.  Even the Linux world is at odds on that topic:
> why should we jump to Linux when half the GUI tools don't run in half
> of the desktop environments that are available?  And while people rag
> about the performance of Windows, take a look at your resource
> consumption and performance on a decked-out Linux box running X11.
> One of my clients has over 120 D3/Linux users running on a very hefty
> piece of iron, and everyone notices when someone starts KDE on the
> console.
> I'm not bashing Linux, I'm just saying it is not "all good" where
> Windows is "all bad".  Moderation is the key.
> Tony
> (Lead, Follow, or Get off the keyboard.)
>  XXXX@XXXXX.COM  wrote:
> ><please ignore>
> ><!-- i have to say something -->
> >I just hope that u're barely tested windows patches don't break d3 and
> >that u're worms stay away.  I also hope your file system performance
> >doesn't degrade to the point where u have to rebuild the box (or spend
> >a year defragging).  I also hope your registry doesn't become
> >corrupted. I also hope you don't mind paying for huge os upgrades more
> >cals etc etc.  I also hope that you can quickly move the whole setup
> >to another box in the case of a catestrophic failure. I also hope that
> >your support for unethical companies does burn a hole through your
> >stomach (like it does mine :>) .
> ></please ignore>
> >
> >personally, I really like to push linux because the more I push linux
> >the quicker I can uninstall XP at my desk and install linux.  While
> >businesses continue to use windows (status quo), I hope that in the
> >future everyone can move towards the light (where linux is shining).
> >
> >-Adam

*snort, giggle, guffaw*
Glad to see you back online after being away for a bit, Tony! I wonder,
though, why you're not expressing yourself!

J/K !


5.Switching from D3/NT to D3/Linux

I have a client about to switch from D3/NT to D3/Linux.
The reason is we keep running out of space in the VME even though users are
for the most part logging off properly and there haven't been system crashes
or improper shutdowns.
RD has not been able to give us a satisfactory answer on how to avoid this
loss of overflow and although we'd prefer to move away from RD, it's not
cost effective at this point to deal with the porting issues and/or
environment differences.

My question is about any pitfalls I should be aware of when switching. I
have other clients on D3/Linux but most are not using odbc. The worst issue
we've had there is maxusers not agreeing with listu.

Are there any issues regarding odbc I should be aware of?

Anyone have any suggestions on how to manage this VME space problem? About
once a month we have to restore the VME. The client has great concern about
the stability of D3/NT.

6. D3 NT vs LINUX locate 'ars'

7. Printing D3 Linux jobs on Windows 2000 printers

8. D3 NT vs Unix documentation

Return to DATABASE


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guest