While I can see the benefits that $ZSTORAGE could have if used properly, I have not seen it used in the environments I have worked in. I was wondering if there are any developers that promote its usage.
If used properly, I would imagine it could be highly effective in maximizing free memory since some processes will never go over X amount, while others may very well need much more.
Has anyone done any kind of integration with Dynatrace, which is a JVM transaction monitoring tool? Our organization uses this extensively with our Java and .Net applications and we wanted to know if it is even possible.
We are seeing more and more customers being lured with latest infrastructure technologies, particularly Composable Infrastructure. Coming with all sorts of data center consolidations and costs savings.
Question is: are there any concerns for HealthShare/TrakCare being run on these platforms or things to look out for? Anyone out there, already on these platforms?
To be more specific this is HPe Synergy with 480 Compute blades booting as bare metal.
I have been asked to assist in the planning of the a new server for our database, which we will be changing operating systems from OpenVMS to Linux (RedHat distribution). However, its difficult to find material regarding what would be recommended, which is likely due to the database being proprietary.
In looking at the information provided below and hoping to decrease processing time, would anyone be able to recommend type of configuration we should have for the new Linux server? Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.
I have a ZEN page with nine tablepanes. Each tablepane queries a table in the same SQLServer db. I have a single SQLGateWay(odbc) to this SQLServer db. I need to get better performance when I query all nine table at the same time. Would my performance improve if I had nine SQLGateWays(nine odbc configurations/connections), one for each query? I would appreciate any and all suggestions for getting the very best performance when using SQLGateWays. Thank you.
Some time ago, I changed the configuration in SQL Runtime Statistic to "Turn on Stats code generation to gather stats at the Open and Close of a query". With this change, the CACHE base (cache/mgr/cache/) has grown a lot to reach 198GB.
Yesterday, I returned the configuration of SQL Runtime Statistic to the default which is "Turn off Stats code generation" and the cache base is no longer growing.
Suppose we need to store millions of values temporarily, that means, we don't care about them if we lose them but our application use them to get realtime information. Should I use Cachetemp or whatever other DB without journaling enabled? If answer is Cachetemp, shouldn't be a problem if we decide to scale using App Server + ECP? I'm not sure what would happen with the app logic in such architecture as I guess I couldn't map and share cachetemp...
I would like to know if an encrypted caché database can run significantly slower than a normal "unencrypted" database, in a way that is noticeable to the end user (e.g. slower response time for most pages, especially the ones that rely on read/writing to globals).
I searched in Intersystems knowledge base and couldn't find anything related. I'm looking for possible before/after benchmarks.
I am designing the software architecture for an Ensemble/Healthshare production to be deployed on Amazon AWS EC2 servers (2 mirrored m4.large - 4 vCPUs / 16 GiB RAM running RedHat Linux 3.10.0-327.el7.x86_64 and Healthshare for RHEL 64-bit 2016.2.1). It's a rather CPU-intensive production involving massive XSLT 2.0 transformations (massive both in terms of size and volume). I was wondering if anyone has experience configuring Ensemble productions on EC2 servers. My question or concern has to do with the following statement in the Ensemble documentation:
On local environment, calling Foo() is instantaneous (a few ms). On production/test servers (which have much better hardware than local) calling this function is slow and take between 200 ms to 800 ms. Obviously starting a new job with "job" command take lot of time on those environments.
I work in a small development company that uses Caché as a database. In some support cases I have doubts about whether the client's infrastructure environment is not affecting Caché's response time. Reading a bit about comparing installations in different environments, both in production as testing and homologation environments , I understood that the TPC-E is a benchmarking method accepted in the market.