How do you change that value in those files.
Thanks
Weston Wheat
Quality Thermistor Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: mapics-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:mapics-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Morrison, Doug
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:21 PM
To: MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [MAPICS-L] FW: Improving Power Link Response Time
We used a unit call EXPAND for awhile but they created more headaches
than help it provided. We got more benefit from making the following
SQL change.
-----Original Message-----
From: Barstow, Terence
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:12 PM
To: Morrison, Doug
Subject: RE: [MAPICS-L] Improving Power Link Response Time
We pulled all the Expand data compression boxes. More trouble than
help.
A better option for them is to change the value if
IGNORE_DERIVED_INDEXES in QAQQINI files (QUSRSYS, AMFLIB1, AMFLIB2) from
*DEFAULT to *YES. This allows the SQL optimizer to use the new and
more efficent SQE engine instead of the older CQE engine for SQL
requests. Leaving it at *DEFAULTS adds at least 15% overhead to almost
every SQL request, plus the query runs much slower. This does nothing
for bandwidth, but does help the query run faster.
Terence Barstow, CCP
-----Original Message-----
From: Morrison, Doug
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:04 PM
To: Barstow, Terence; Burdick, Bob
Subject: FW: [MAPICS-L] Improving Power Link Response Time
This was just posted on the MAPICS users group email. We aren't the
only ones feeling the pain of PowerLink. I think these optimizer he is
referring too are like the Expand Boxes we were using. Are we still
using them for non VOIP traffic?
-----Original Message-----
From: mapics-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:mapics-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shurge, Stephen
(MTL)
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:47 PM
To: MAPICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Shurge, Stephen (MTL)
Subject: [MAPICS-L] Improving Power Link Response Time
To All Members:
We have a performance issue with Power Link in our remote locations,
even after adding many logical files suggested by Infor.
Does anyone have experience or is using WAN Optimizers.
We are looking at River Bed and Juniper WAN Optimizing hardware and
software solutions to possibly resolve our performance issues in our
remote locations.
Are there any Infor Customers using a WAN Optimizing solutions to
improve their response times and avoid internet latency?
We feel this may be a better overall solution instead of installing a
Citrix or Microsoft Terminal Servers.
Any comments about these WAN Optimizing solutions or other performance
suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks
Steve Shurge
midrange.com
