Art's Fear the Panther....
You probably noticed that Art Kagel posted a new entry in his blog:
http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/2010/10/fear-panther.html
At the end he mentions that IIUG is preparing the vNext survey (!). The
world never stops!
He wrote:
"The IIUG will soon be posting its new Features Survey which we will had to
IBM to help them design the next release of Informix Dynamic Server. If you
don't think that you have a voice in how IBM determines features for
Informix, guess again. Every one of the features mentioned here was
requested by users like you/me/us either directly or through an expressed
need that had to be filled. Several are features that were asked for and
received high marks on the previous Features Surveys. So, when you see the
Insider or email announcement of the Survey, fill it out."
And mentioned some features he would like to see next. I commented and
Kernoal Stephens followed me. While we wait for the survey I thought it
would be nice to start thinking about some possible features.
The one me and Kernoal discussed was:
- Possibility of making upgrades without restoring secondaries.
Kernoal mentioned that he has RSS on the other side of the globe, so a total
re-initialization is not good.
In my perspective, even for "next rack" secondaries, this is terrible. Many
times the secondaries are used for ETL or DSS queries. And to restore them
can sometimes take hours (ifxclone will be a great help by the way).
So, would it be so difficult to implement this? I'm assuming that the
conversion actions (inplace migration) are logged. If this is correct, I
don't see why the secondaries could not "replay the upgrade".
The oninit would have to check that it's running a different version from
the reserved pages... Then it would need to verify that the logs it got or
that are on the primary start with a new log record that says "UPGRADE TO
VERSION x". Check that "x" is the version it is running (oninit), and if ok
then apply the logs... If something doesn't match say "must run with version
x. Please restart with correct version".
Would this be too hard to implement? From a "blind man" point of view this
looks much easier that the new rolling upgrade (cdr start sec2er) which by
the way I tested today (very small instance) and I must say it's amazing!
Other features to consider:
- expand the concept of FULL_DISK_INIT to other situations (restores, chunk
creation etc.)
- capture and remotely apply workload
- HDR between platforms (I know Madison doesn't like this one. I would love
if on oninit -i we could define the "system page size" to 4K for example,
and if we could send the logs and other stuff in "network format" so that we
got the same thing for the same page on the remote site). This would be a
killer for moving to other platforms and new hardware... and for the grid...
- ability to create a clone (standalone) from a secondary server using
ifxclone even if that forced the secondary to be a "lag" server
- ability to "rename chunks" in ifxclone. A MUST have I would say for
creating test environments and I suppose not very hard to do
- More dynamic parameters
- lock limit per session (I'd kill for this one)
- a FORCE_DDL for everything...
- fine grain auditing for other menemonics besides RDRW,UPRW,DLRW and INRW
(like EXSP)
- Session ID in the audit logs. PID is nearly useless in many situations
like java applications. And I need to be able to match audit logs and
logical logs
- more info for ACTB (access table) specifying if it was SELECTED, INSERTED,
UPDATED or DELETED and the result (OK, NOK)
- Explain in any tool (server side view for last or N last statements)
- in memory database (it's not the same as forcing the tables in cache...)
- Materialized views
- XPS "slices"
- result set caching (we already keep the number of updates/deletes/inserts
so for a frequent query at least on a single table, why not keep the result
if none of these change?)
Start by looking at the statement cache... see the more used queries... if
single table and "non variant" (i.e.: no "datetime" etc. data)...
- PL/SQL datablade? :)
- TSQL datablade? :)
- Purescale :P
Ok... enough. Now is the time to tame the latest beast, but someone out
there should be thinking about this. Some of the suggestions are easy I
believe, others not so, and others are just for laugh.
For now, a great thanks to the development team who was able to put a great
set of features into Panther. But as usual, we need to keep improving!
Regards.
--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal
http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
--00163662e56633019d0492ffbfdb
In response to Art's comment about me not wanting to do HDR with dissimilar
systems. That's not quite true. I wish that we could.
Unfortunately there are too many places in the server where data is stored
in native rather than network independent format. Some of those places
such as page headers and log records, we know about, but there are a bunch
of things which we don't know about (i.e. the innards of blobs and UDTs).
From: "Fernando Nunes" <domusonline@gmail.com>
To: ids@iiug.org
Date: 10/19/2010 04:24 PM
Subject: Art's Fear the Panther.... [21768]
Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org
You probably noticed that Art Kagel posted a new entry in his blog:
http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/2010/10/fear-panther.html
At the end he mentions that IIUG is preparing the vNext survey (!). The
world never stops!
He wrote:
"The IIUG will soon be posting its new Features Survey which we will had to
IBM to help them design the next release of Informix Dynamic Server. If you
don't think that you have a voice in how IBM determines features for
Informix, guess again. Every one of the features mentioned here was
requested by users like you/me/us either directly or through an expressed
need that had to be filled. Several are features that were asked for and
received high marks on the previous Features Surveys. So, when you see the
Insider or email announcement of the Survey, fill it out."
And mentioned some features he would like to see next. I commented and
Kernoal Stephens followed me. While we wait for the survey I thought it
would be nice to start thinking about some possible features.
The one me and Kernoal discussed was:
- Possibility of making upgrades without restoring secondaries.
Kernoal mentioned that he has RSS on the other side of the globe, so a
total
re-initialization is not good.
In my perspective, even for "next rack" secondaries, this is terrible. Many
times the secondaries are used for ETL or DSS queries. And to restore them
can sometimes take hours (ifxclone will be a great help by the way).
So, would it be so difficult to implement this? I'm assuming that the
conversion actions (inplace migration) are logged. If this is correct, I
don't see why the secondaries could not "replay the upgrade".
The oninit would have to check that it's running a different version from
the reserved pages... Then it would need to verify that the logs it got or
that are on the primary start with a new log record that says "UPGRADE TO
VERSION x". Check that "x" is the version it is running (oninit), and if ok
then apply the logs... If something doesn't match say "must run with
version
x. Please restart with correct version".
Would this be too hard to implement? From a "blind man" point of view this
looks much easier that the new rolling upgrade (cdr start sec2er) which by
the way I tested today (very small instance) and I must say it's amazing!
Other features to consider:
- expand the concept of FULL_DISK_INIT to other situations (restores, chunk
creation etc.)
- capture and remotely apply workload
- HDR between platforms (I know Madison doesn't like this one. I would love
if on oninit -i we could define the "system page size" to 4K for example,
and if we could send the logs and other stuff in "network format" so that
we
got the same thing for the same page on the remote site). This would be a
killer for moving to other platforms and new hardware... and for the
grid...
- ability to create a clone (standalone) from a secondary server using
ifxclone even if that forced the secondary to be a "lag" server
- ability to "rename chunks" in ifxclone. A MUST have I would say for
creating test environments and I suppose not very hard to do
- More dynamic parameters
- lock limit per session (I'd kill for this one)
- a FORCE_DDL for everything...
- fine grain auditing for other menemonics besides RDRW,UPRW,DLRW and INRW
(like EXSP)
- Session ID in the audit logs. PID is nearly useless in many situations
like java applications. And I need to be able to match audit logs and
logical logs
- more info for ACTB (access table) specifying if it was SELECTED,
INSERTED,
UPDATED or DELETED and the result (OK, NOK)
- Explain in any tool (server side view for last or N last statements)
- in memory database (it's not the same as forcing the tables in cache...)
- Materialized views
- XPS "slices"
- result set caching (we already keep the number of updates/deletes/inserts
so for a frequent query at least on a single table, why not keep the result
if none of these change?)
Start by looking at the statement cache... see the more used queries... if
single table and "non variant" (i.e.: no "datetime" etc. data)...
- PL/SQL datablade? :)
- TSQL datablade? :)
- Purescale :P
Ok... enough. Now is the time to tame the latest beast, but someone out
there should be thinking about this. Some of the suggestions are easy I
believe, others not so, and others are just for laugh.
For now, a great thanks to the development team who was able to put a great
set of features into Panther. But as usual, we need to keep improving!
Regards.
--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal
http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
--00163662e56633019d0492ffbfdb
*******************************************************************************
Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Madison Pruet <mpruet@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> In response to Art's comment about me not wanting to do HDR with dissimilar
> systems. That's not quite true. I wish that we could.
>
> Unfortunately there are too many places in the server where data is stored
> in native rather than network independent format. Some of those places
> such as page headers and log records, we know about, but there are a bunch
> of things which we don't know about (i.e. the innards of blobs and UDTs).
>
>
Hello Madison.
Let me correct this. It was not Art who comment that. It was me. And if I
used "not wanting" I did a mistake.
What I wanted to mean was that already told me that you don't think this is
feabible and those are the reasons.
I honestly don't know enough... But what I wanted to explain was that from
my naive point of view it would be possible to send a page in "network
format" and convert it to "native format" on the destination.
So I would think that this would be possible for "generic Informix pages".
You mention blobs and UDTs and that's understandable.
Nevertheless there are a lot of customers who don't use either. A few years
ago we didn't support it for HDR... So if it was technically feasible I'd
love to see this happening even with limitations. Naturally UDTs could be
"certified" as an ongoing process.
But again. I don't know enough (technically). I'm just playing devil's
advocate here. And of course this would require a business reason even if it
was possible to implement.
Anyway, sorry Art, it was me, not you.
In fact me and Madison had a chat about this in IIUG this year... That's
when you told me about sec2er and I though to my self something like
"yeah.... I wanna see that"... Well... I did yesterday. And me and two
customer team members were a bit amazed... It worked! :)
It was a very simple instance... In a few days/weeks we're going to a test
with an image of their production system. If it works I surrender! :)
Regards!
From: "Fernando Nunes" <domusonline@gmail.com>
>
> To: ids@iiug.org
>
> Date: 10/19/2010 04:24 PM
>
> Subject: Art's Fear the Panther.... [21768]
>
> Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org
>
> You probably noticed that Art Kagel posted a new entry in his blog:
>
> http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/2010/10/fear-panther.html
>
> At the end he mentions that IIUG is preparing the vNext survey (!). The
> world never stops!
>
> He wrote:
>
> "The IIUG will soon be posting its new Features Survey which we will had to
>
> IBM to help them design the next release of Informix Dynamic Server. If you
>
> don't think that you have a voice in how IBM determines features for
> Informix, guess again. Every one of the features mentioned here was
> requested by users like you/me/us either directly or through an expressed
> need that had to be filled. Several are features that were asked for and
> received high marks on the previous Features Surveys. So, when you see the
> Insider or email announcement of the Survey, fill it out."
>
> And mentioned some features he would like to see next. I commented and
> Kernoal Stephens followed me. While we wait for the survey I thought it
> would be nice to start thinking about some possible features.
> The one me and Kernoal discussed was:
>
> - Possibility of making upgrades without restoring secondaries.
>
> Kernoal mentioned that he has RSS on the other side of the globe, so a
> total
> re-initialization is not good.
> In my perspective, even for "next rack" secondaries, this is terrible. Many
>
> times the secondaries are used for ETL or DSS queries. And to restore them
> can sometimes take hours (ifxclone will be a great help by the way).
> So, would it be so difficult to implement this? I'm assuming that the
> conversion actions (inplace migration) are logged. If this is correct, I
> don't see why the secondaries could not "replay the upgrade".
> The oninit would have to check that it's running a different version from
> the reserved pages... Then it would need to verify that the logs it got or
> that are on the primary start with a new log record that says "UPGRADE TO
> VERSION x". Check that "x" is the version it is running (oninit), and if ok
>
> then apply the logs... If something doesn't match say "must run with
> version
> x. Please restart with correct version".
> Would this be too hard to implement? From a "blind man" point of view this
> looks much easier that the new rolling upgrade (cdr start sec2er) which by
> the way I tested today (very small instance) and I must say it's amazing!
>
> Other features to consider:
> - expand the concept of FULL_DISK_INIT to other situations (restores, chunk
>
> creation etc.)
> - capture and remotely apply workload
> - HDR between platforms (I know Madison doesn't like this one. I would love
>
> if on oninit -i we could define the "system page size" to 4K for example,
> and if we could send the logs and other stuff in "network format" so that
> we
> got the same thing for the same page on the remote site). This would be a
> killer for moving to other platforms and new hardware... and for the
> grid...
> - ability to create a clone (standalone) from a secondary server using
> ifxclone even if that forced the secondary to be a "lag" server
> - ability to "rename chunks" in ifxclone. A MUST have I would say for
> creating test environments and I suppose not very hard to do
> - More dynamic parameters
> - lock limit per session (I'd kill for this one)
> - a FORCE_DDL for everything...
> - fine grain auditing for other menemonics besides RDRW,UPRW,DLRW and INRW
> (like EXSP)
> - Session ID in the audit logs. PID is nearly useless in many situations
> like java applications. And I need to be able to match audit logs and
> logical logs
> - more info for ACTB (access table) specifying if it was SELECTED,
> INSERTED,
> UPDATED or DELETED and the result (OK, NOK)
> - Explain in any tool (server side view for last or N last statements)
> - in memory database (it's not the same as forcing the tables in cache...)
> - Materialized views
> - XPS "slices"
> - result set caching (we already keep the number of updates/deletes/inserts
>
> so for a frequent query at least on a single table, why not keep the result
>
> if none of these change?)
> Start by looking at the statement cache... see the more used queries... if
> single table and "non variant" (i.e.: no "datetime" etc. data)...
> - PL/SQL datablade? :)
> - TSQL datablade? :)
> - Purescale :P
>
> Ok... enough. Now is the time to tame the latest beast, but someone out
> there should be thinking about this. Some of the suggestions are easy I
> believe, others not so, and others are just for laugh.
> For now, a great thanks to the development team who was able to put a great
>
> set of features into Panther. But as usual, we need to keep improving!
>
> Regards.
> --
> Fernando Nunes
> Portugal
>
> http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
no complaints intended. I just wanted to correct the impression that I
might be opposed to it.
The main theme of Art's blog is totally correct, however. We do listen to
customer suggestions. Often they are things that we have already been
thinking about and by hearing some customer suggest the same thing
increases the justification of the feature - and makes it more probable
that it will be prioritized. In other cases it might be something that we
hadn't even thought of at all.
From: "Fernando Nunes" <domusonline@gmail.com>
To: ids@iiug.org
Date: 10/20/2010 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Art's Fear the Panther.... [21774]
Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Madison Pruet <mpruet@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> In response to Art's comment about me not wanting to do HDR with
dissimilar
> systems. That's not quite true. I wish that we could.
>
> Unfortunately there are too many places in the server where data is
stored
> in native rather than network independent format. Some of those places
> such as page headers and log records, we know about, but there are a
bunch
> of things which we don't know about (i.e. the innards of blobs and UDTs).
>
>
Hello Madison.
Let me correct this. It was not Art who comment that. It was me. And if I
used "not wanting" I did a mistake.
What I wanted to mean was that already told me that you don't think this is
feabible and those are the reasons.
I honestly don't know enough... But what I wanted to explain was that from
my naive point of view it would be possible to send a page in "network
format" and convert it to "native format" on the destination.
So I would think that this would be possible for "generic Informix pages".
You mention blobs and UDTs and that's understandable.
Nevertheless there are a lot of customers who don't use either. A few years
ago we didn't support it for HDR... So if it was technically feasible I'd
love to see this happening even with limitations. Naturally UDTs could be
"certified" as an ongoing process.
But again. I don't know enough (technically). I'm just playing devil's
advocate here. And of course this would require a business reason even if
it
was possible to implement.
Anyway, sorry Art, it was me, not you.
In fact me and Madison had a chat about this in IIUG this year... That's
when you told me about sec2er and I though to my self something like
"yeah.... I wanna see that"... Well... I did yesterday. And me and two
customer team members were a bit amazed... It worked! :)
It was a very simple instance... In a few days/weeks we're going to a test
with an image of their production system. If it works I surrender! :)
Regards!
From: "Fernando Nunes" <domusonline@gmail.com>
>
> To: ids@iiug.org
>
> Date: 10/19/2010 04:24 PM
>
> Subject: Art's Fear the Panther.... [21768]
>
> Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org
>
> You probably noticed that Art Kagel posted a new entry in his blog:
>
> http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/2010/10/fear-panther.html
>
> At the end he mentions that IIUG is preparing the vNext survey (!). The
> world never stops!
>
> He wrote:
>
> "The IIUG will soon be posting its new Features Survey which we will had
to
>
> IBM to help them design the next release of Informix Dynamic Server. If
you
>
> don't think that you have a voice in how IBM determines features for
> Informix, guess again. Every one of the features mentioned here was
> requested by users like you/me/us either directly or through an expressed
> need that had to be filled. Several are features that were asked for and
> received high marks on the previous Features Surveys. So, when you see
the
> Insider or email announcement of the Survey, fill it out."
>
> And mentioned some features he would like to see next. I commented and
> Kernoal Stephens followed me. While we wait for the survey I thought it
> would be nice to start thinking about some possible features.
> The one me and Kernoal discussed was:
>
> - Possibility of making upgrades without restoring secondaries.
>
> Kernoal mentioned that he has RSS on the other side of the globe, so a
> total
> re-initialization is not good.
> In my perspective, even for "next rack" secondaries, this is terrible.
Many
>
> times the secondaries are used for ETL or DSS queries. And to restore
them
> can sometimes take hours (ifxclone will be a great help by the way).
> So, would it be so difficult to implement this? I'm assuming that the
> conversion actions (inplace migration) are logged. If this is correct, I
> don't see why the secondaries could not "replay the upgrade".
> The oninit would have to check that it's running a different version from
> the reserved pages... Then it would need to verify that the logs it got
or
> that are on the primary start with a new log record that says "UPGRADE TO
> VERSION x". Check that "x" is the version it is running (oninit), and if
ok
>
> then apply the logs... If something doesn't match say "must run with
> version
> x. Please restart with correct version".
> Would this be too hard to implement? From a "blind man" point of view
this
> looks much easier that the new rolling upgrade (cdr start sec2er) which
by
> the way I tested today (very small instance) and I must say it's amazing!
>
> Other features to consider:
> - expand the concept of FULL_DISK_INIT to other situations (restores,
chunk
>
> creation etc.)
> - capture and remotely apply workload
> - HDR between platforms (I know Madison doesn't like this one. I would
love
>
> if on oninit -i we could define the "system page size" to 4K for example,
> and if we could send the logs and other stuff in "network format" so that
> we
> got the same thing for the same page on the remote site). This would be a
> killer for moving to other platforms and new hardware... and for the
> grid...
> - ability to create a clone (standalone) from a secondary server using
> ifxclone even if that forced the secondary to be a "lag" server
> - ability to "rename chunks" in ifxclone. A MUST have I would say for
> creating test environments and I suppose not very hard to do
> - More dynamic parameters
> - lock limit per session (I'd kill for this one)
> - a FORCE_DDL for everything...
> - fine grain auditing for other menemonics besides RDRW,UPRW,DLRW and
INRW
> (like EXSP)
> - Session ID in the audit logs. PID is nearly useless in many situations
> like java applications. And I need to be able to match audit logs and
> logical logs
> - more info for ACTB (access table) specifying if it was SELECTED,
> INSERTED,
> UPDATED or DELETED and the result (OK, NOK)
> - Explain in any tool (server side view for last or N last statements)
> - in memory database (it's not the same as forcing the tables in
cache...)
> - Materialized views
> - XPS "slices"
> - result set caching (we already keep the number of
updates/de
That wasn't't me Madison. It was Fernando IB.
Art
On Oct 20, 2010 11:25 AM, "Madison Pruet" <mpruet@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> In response to Art's comment about me not wanting to do HDR with
dissimilar
> systems. That's not quite true. I wish that we could.
>
> Unfortunately there are too many places in the server where data is stored
> in native rather than network independent format. Some of those places
> such as page headers and log records, we know about, but there are a bunch
> of things which we don't know about (i.e. the innards of blobs and UDTs).
>
> From: "Fernando Nunes" <domusonline@gmail.com>
>
> To: ids@iiug.org
>
> Date: 10/19/2010 04:24 PM
>
> Subject: Art's Fear the Panther.... [21768]
>
> Sent by: ids-bounces@iiug.org
>
> You probably noticed that Art Kagel posted a new entry in his blog:
>
> http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/2010/10/fear-panther.html
>
> At the end he mentions that IIUG is preparing the vNext survey (!). The
> world never stops!
>
> He wrote:
>
> "The IIUG will soon be posting its new Features Survey which we will had
to
>
> IBM to help them design the next release of Informix Dynamic Server. If
you
>
> don't think that you have a voice in how IBM determines features for
> Informix, guess again. Every one of the features mentioned here was
> requested by users like you/me/us either directly or through an expressed
> need that had to be filled. Several are features that were asked for and
> received high marks on the previous Features Surveys. So, when you see the
> Insider or email announcement of the Survey, fill it out."
>
> And mentioned some features he would like to see next. I commented and
> Kernoal Stephens followed me. While we wait for the survey I thought it
> would be nice to start thinking about some possible features.
> The one me and Kernoal discussed was:
>
> - Possibility of making upgrades without restoring secondaries.
>
> Kernoal mentioned that he has RSS on the other side of the globe, so a
> total
> re-initialization is not good.
> In my perspective, even for "next rack" secondaries, this is terrible.
Many
>
> times the secondaries are used for ETL or DSS queries. And to restore them
> can sometimes take hours (ifxclone will be a great help by the way).
> So, would it be so difficult to implement this? I'm assuming that the
> conversion actions (inplace migration) are logged. If this is correct, I
> don't see why the secondaries could not "replay the upgrade".
> The oninit would have to check that it's running a different version from
> the reserved pages... Then it would need to verify that the logs it got or
> that are on the primary start with a new log record that says "UPGRADE TO
> VERSION x". Check that "x" is the version it is running (oninit), and if
ok
>
> then apply the logs... If something doesn't match say "must run with
> version
> x. Please restart with correct version".
> Would this be too hard to implement? From a "blind man" point of view this
> looks much easier that the new rolling upgrade (cdr start sec2er) which by
> the way I tested today (very small instance) and I must say it's amazing!
>
> Other features to consider:
> - expand the concept of FULL_DISK_INIT to other situations (restores,
chunk
>
> creation etc.)
> - capture and remotely apply workload
> - HDR between platforms (I know Madison doesn't like this one. I would
love
>
> if on oninit -i we could define the "system page size" to 4K for example,
> and if we could send the logs and other stuff in "network format" so that
> we
> got the same thing for the same page on the remote site). This would be a
> killer for moving to other platforms and new hardware... and for the
> grid...
> - ability to create a clone (standalone) from a secondary server using
> ifxclone even if that forced the secondary to be a "lag" server
> - ability to "rename chunks" in ifxclone. A MUST have I would say for
> creating test environments and I suppose not very hard to do
> - More dynamic parameters
> - lock limit per session (I'd kill for this one)
> - a FORCE_DDL for everything...
> - fine grain auditing for other menemonics besides RDRW,UPRW,DLRW and INRW
> (like EXSP)
> - Session ID in the audit logs. PID is nearly useless in many situations
> like java applications. And I need to be able to match audit logs and
> logical logs
> - more info for ACTB (access table) specifying if it was SELECTED,
> INSERTED,
> UPDATED or DELETED and the result (OK, NOK)
> - Explain in any tool (server side view for last or N last statements)
> - in memory database (it's not the same as forcing the tables in cache...)
> - Materialized views
> - XPS "slices"
> - result set caching (we already keep the number of
updates/deletes/inserts
>
> so for a frequent query at least on a single table, why not keep the
result
>
> if none of these change?)
> Start by looking at the statement cache... see the more used queries... if
> single table and "non variant" (i.e.: no "datetime" etc. data)...
> - PL/SQL datablade? :)
> - TSQL datablade? :)
> - Purescale :P
>
> Ok... enough. Now is the time to tame the latest beast, but someone out
> there should be thinking about this. Some of the suggestions are easy I
> believe, others not so, and others are just for laugh.
> For now, a great thanks to the development team who was able to put a
great
>
> set of features into Panther. But as usual, we need to keep improving!
>
> Regards.
> --
> Fernando Nunes
> Portugal
>
> http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
> My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
>
> --00163662e56633019d0492ffbfdb
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
>
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
--0016e6509bc825d443049311acdb