ron
Member
Hi,
I'm at a company with many remote sites, each with a Progress DB. They are (slowly) rolling-out a change from SCO Unix + Progress 9.1D - to Linux + Progress 10.2B. However - the storage areas are not being changed.
I want to put a case to use Type 2 storage areas. I read the Progress docs and many posts in this forum. I understand that Type 2 areas keep associated data clustered ... which means the data won't fragment like it does with Type 1 areas. I've read it said many times that with Type 2 you NEVER need to D/L again (for performance reasons). Is that literally true? Or is it that the rate of degradation is very slow such that you can go much longer in-between D/Ls?
The company also has quite a large number of (local) SQL Server DBs - and as far as I know none of them have ever had a D/L. Does SQL fragment like Progress? I remember many years back with Ingres DBs we had to D/L occasionally. But these days I only ever hear of it with Progress. Does anyone have knowledge about this?
Ron.
I'm at a company with many remote sites, each with a Progress DB. They are (slowly) rolling-out a change from SCO Unix + Progress 9.1D - to Linux + Progress 10.2B. However - the storage areas are not being changed.
I want to put a case to use Type 2 storage areas. I read the Progress docs and many posts in this forum. I understand that Type 2 areas keep associated data clustered ... which means the data won't fragment like it does with Type 1 areas. I've read it said many times that with Type 2 you NEVER need to D/L again (for performance reasons). Is that literally true? Or is it that the rate of degradation is very slow such that you can go much longer in-between D/Ls?
The company also has quite a large number of (local) SQL Server DBs - and as far as I know none of them have ever had a D/L. Does SQL fragment like Progress? I remember many years back with Ingres DBs we had to D/L occasionally. But these days I only ever hear of it with Progress. Does anyone have knowledge about this?
Ron.