RE: [U2] UV and Antivirus Software
Jerry The problem you tend to hit is that a single record update to a UniVerse file constitutes a change to the file - so the whole file gets locked at the O.S level while the AV software scans the whole UniVerse data file through memory. It can be a killer as multi-megabyte / multi-gigabyte files get dragged through the disk I/O and memory subsystems. Performance? What's that? Recommend: Excluding directory structures which hold UniVerse data files - it's UK to scan the UniVerse executables. UniVerse data files in accounts hold NO executables - they are all in the UniVerse services (e.g. unirpcd) and kernel ($UVBIN). There's no reason to scan data files, and you can load AV - just with care. There have been discussions on the pros and cons of different AV products in the Oliver discussions, it's worth a look. There are a number I am happy with and some I would not touch . Regards JayJay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JPB-U2UG Sent: 06 June 2008 20:55 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] UV and Antivirus Software We were just informed that with PCI the systems have to be protected with antivirus software. I thought that there was a problem running antivirus software with the UniVerse database. Am I wrong? If this is true how are other people dealing with this part of PCI. Oh, and that includes *nix systems. What antivirus software is out there for Linux that won't harm the database? Jerry Banker Senior Programmer Analyst IBM Certified Solutions Expert --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UOJ and value-mark and field-mark
Change the @FM to @AM see if what the results are. -Original Message- From: waivic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:18 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] UOJ and value-mark and field-mark I have a very simple file-TESTS, which only has 4 fields: @ID field, F1, F2 and F3. F1 is a single value field, F2 is a multi-value field and the value is one value-mark-separated list, F3 is a single value field. It has the following sample record in the file: Field Name Value @ID t101 F1 F1V1 F2 F2V1:@VM:F2V2 F3 F3V1 I use the following UniObject for Java code segment to retrieve the record t101 from the file: //uSession is a UniSession Oject uSession.connect(); //Open a file variable to TESTS file. UniFile testFile = uSession.open(TESTS); //Read the record out String key = t101; UniStirng uString = personFile.read(key); System.out.println(b the full record:b +uString); System.out.println(b the number of fields in the file:b +uString.dcount()); When I print out the contents of the record, it looks like UOJ converts all the value marks at the field F2 into the field mark. When I use dcount() function to count the number of fields in the output, it returns 5, instead of 4. I think the correct result should be 4 since only 4 fields (@ID field, F1, F2 and F3) in the file. It seems that read() function converts all the value-marks into the field-marks. So the values at the field-F2: F2V1:@VM:F2V2 becomes F2:@FM:F2V2. That is why I got 5 instead of 4 when we use dcount() to count the number of fields in the output. We are running Unidata 7.1 in Red hat Linux server. I already set the environment variable LANG to bCb. I even tried to set LANG to ben_USb. Both times, the UOJ program returned the same result. Does anyone know how this happens? I want to keep the original value-marks and field-marks after using read() function. Please advice. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/UOJ-and-value-mark-and-field-mark-tp17612976p17612976.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UV] fnuxi Question
Try cpio -Original Message- From: John Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:48 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] fnuxi Question Did you try fnuxi -o and then (maybe) fnuxi -6 while pushing? Regards JayJay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: 30 May 2008 20:53 To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] fnuxi Question Good idea. I guess that I tried push, not pull. I will try it again (both ways). --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Israel, John R. Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:21 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UV] fnuxi Question Have you tried to copy on both boxes (push from box 1 to box 2, or pull from box 2 against box1)? John Israel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:54 PM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: [U2] [UV] fnuxi Question When I try to copy data from UniVerse v10.1 (HP-Ux 11i v2, Integrity rx2600) to UniVerse v8.8.3 (HP-Ux v10, HP-9000 E45) the following error results... Program PART.MGR.R79: Line 105, Cannot open file IPL: file revision level from subsequent release. Use fnuxi command to regress file to the current revision level. After taking a stab at using fnuxi, the same error messages result. Are these versions of UniVerse backward-compatible? Is there a way to copy from new to old UniVerse and have programs work? Suggestions would be appreciated. --Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] CALL @progname
But if the program is not globally catalog then you will find it there. It make sure that you can exit the program catalog it before calling it. If you want to make sure that you can catalog it the basic the program before the catalog. EXECUTE BASIC :filename: :program CAPTURING OUTPUT (stops display to screen) EXECUTE CATALOG :filename: :program CAPTURING OUTPUT Note that if all your code is in one file that you can hard code the filename. -Original Message- From: Cordes, Tom (contractor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:32 AM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] CALL @progname Dave, If the _MAP_ file is current, all globally catalogued programs have an entry. 'MAKE.MAP.FILE' updates the file. Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:20 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] [UD] CALL @progname I am writing some code that will execute a variable passed in progname using CALL @progname. Question - what is the 'best' way to know that progname exists before I attempt the CALL. I thought about reading the VOC, but if it's globally cataloged, that won't work. I could read the VOC and then the CTLGTB -- but that was two reads just to 'know' the routine wasn't going to blow up. Is there a more efficient or systemic way to do this? **Typically** progname will reference a real program, so this testing is 'overhead' for 99.9% of the time - but if someone were to pass in a bad 'progname', I want to be more graceful (and secure!) just falling over. Since some of the calls will come from 'web connected' clients, and some of the clients may not know for sure that the host cannot handle the request - if the client has a different function list than the host at that point and time... I'm just trying to plan for 'worst case'. How do others handle CALL @ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UOJ and value-mark and field-mark
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Sun Jun 08 00:35:12 2008 Subject: RE: [U2] UOJ and value-mark and field-mark Change the @FM to @AM see if what the results are. -Original Message- From: waivic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:18 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] UOJ and value-mark and field-mark I have a very simple file-TESTS, which only has 4 fields: @ID field, F1, F2 and F3. F1 is a single value field, F2 is a multi-value field and the value is one value-mark-separated list, F3 is a single value field. It has the following sample record in the file: Field Name Value @ID t101 F1 F1V1 F2 F2V1:@VM:F2V2 F3 F3V1 I use the following UniObject for Java code segment to retrieve the record t101 from the file: //uSession is a UniSession Oject uSession.connect(); //Open a file variable to TESTS file. UniFile testFile = uSession.open(TESTS); //Read the record out String key = t101; UniStirng uString = personFile.read(key); System.out.println(b the full record:b +uString); System.out.println(b the number of fields in the file:b +uString.dcount()); When I print out the contents of the record, it looks like UOJ converts all the value marks at the field F2 into the field mark. When I use dcount() function to count the number of fields in the output, it returns 5, instead of 4. I think the correct result should be 4 since only 4 fields (@ID field, F1, F2 and F3) in the file. It seems that read() function converts all the value-marks into the field-marks. So the values at the field-F2: F2V1:@VM:F2V2 becomes F2:@FM:F2V2. That is why I got 5 instead of 4 when we use dcount() to count the number of fields in the output. We are running Unidata 7.1 in Red hat Linux server. I already set the environment variable LANG to bCb. I even tried to set LANG to ben_USb. Both times, the UOJ program returned the same result. Does anyone know how this happens? I want to keep the original value-marks and field-marks after using read() function. Please advice. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/UOJ-and-value-mark-and-field-mark-tp17612976p17612976.h tml Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Uni Coop Bookshop company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
