Hello Jennifer, if you make (and place) the SSLDefs.ini file then it will be used for client connections that match the specified host/port.

I'm not sure I understand your second question, however; is there a reason you would not be able to create the config file? I don't know of an alternative.

Maybe this is a silly suggestion, but if you have a test environment you could try removing sections of code until you find the one that, when removed, causes that line to disappear. I'm sure there's a cleaner way to do this, but if you don't see it in the code, that's what comes to mind.

I was asking if it was a BPL or a router, mainly. Looks like a BPL. I think it would definitely take some looking at the code to figure out where the connection's coming from. I think if you looked at the class in Studio you could probably try to find in files to see where the reference is, might be easier than looking through the BPL in the portal.

Hello Dustin,

What kind of business process is it? Can you attach some screenshots of what it is doing?

Hello Kathy,

This would be an installer/OS level issue so not something that SQL could help with. Do you still have the install kit and can you try to use that to uninstall? If you check the Windows event log do you see any errors from your first (or subsequent) uninstall attempts?

Can you check if there are any pending installation/uninstalls? Perhaps you could try restarting the server and then trying to uninstall?

Out of curiosity, have there been other instances installed/uninstalled on the same server?

Hello Matthew,

Out of curiosity, what are some examples of things that you don't want shared within one instance?

I'm not sure about the per-instance overhead, I don't know how common of a scenario that is, so you may want to test it out. With multiple instances, you would have multiple write/journal daemons. I wonder if your current setup benefits from the shared buffer pool, or if your separate namespaces are handling totally different sets of data.

Re: the memory split, I think that depends on how much activity you're running through each instance. If you think they'll all need the same amount of memory, an even split might be fine.

Is there any consideration to splitting out to separate servers? It sounds like isolation/granularity are some of the things you are looking for, and separate servers would help with that.

@wenjie zhao 

If I'm interpreting your question (and its translation) correctly, it sounds like you will have multiple mirror members on the same disk array. Is this a mirror member in the same mirror or different?

If the same, I think part of the value of a mirror is that you can failover if a problem happens to a piece of hardware, for example. If both mirrors are running on one disk array, if that disk array has a problem, you can't really failover.

If a separate mirror, then you could have two separate mirrors failing over if your 1 disk array has a problem - if that's acceptable to you, I don't necessarily see a problem.

Realistically, it's hard to provide advice without knowing exactly the architecture you are considering and the types of problems you want to be prepared for. I'd refer back to my initial reply, which is that I'd think about mirroring as I would any other HA architecture and think about what will happen if single items fail - generally, I think you would want your HA to be able to work around a single piece failing.

Hello Wenjie,

Google translate wasn't able to help me understand the infrastructure you are suggesting. Perhaps a diagram would be helpful.

Mirroring can be used as part of a highly available architecture, but if you have concerns I would look at what your single points of failure are. 

Hello Gary,

What code are you running?

Great analogy Nigel, thanks for sharing a fun modern-day Aesop's fable!

Great! This was an interesting topic and I'm sure one that will help future viewers of the community.

Hey Matthew,

No technical suggestions from me, but I would say that there are pros/cons to file / global streams which have been covered quite well by the other commenters. For the performance concern in particular, it is difficult to compare different environments and use patterns. It might be helpful to test using file / global streams and see how the performance for your expected stream usage, combined with your system activity, plays into your decision to go with one or the other.

Hello Nikhil,

There are a variety of learning resources for Caché / IRIS / ObjectScript.

From InterSystems documentation: ObjectScript Tutorial

Also linked in the top bar of the developer community, the InterSystems learning portal has many videos/courses: Learning.intersystems.com

Hello Brian,

It is interesting to know that this might be implemented at some point.

My first thought is to recommend not compiling a running production, though I understand that's not "helpful" advice. When you compile a business component it should be stopped, and I assume similar best practices apply to compiling a production.

Can you explain why the production needs to be recompiled while active? Maybe that will help somebody present a workaround.

Hello Lawrence,

Screen is certainly an option (and doesn't require more than installing and running ^DBREST per your normal steps), but there is also the built-in function of:

Unattended Restore Using ^DBREST

EXTALL^DBREST and EXTSELECT^DBREST.

Hello T,

Some settings such as AlertOnError aren't in Ens.Config.Item but are stored in the production definition class.

edit: see my comment below, these settings are in the production definition, but you seem to be able to modify them using Ens.Config.Item as well.

Perhaps you could use the System Default Setting?

For something like this, especially with urgency, I'd recommend reaching out to your InterSystems rep or the WRC.

Actually, I'm seeing that I can find the InactivityTimeout setting (for example) and modify it using Ens.Config.Item. I'm not sure where exactly your problem is coming from.