FW: Unix- HELP! Are we being bluffed?

Ok, Here are some best guess responses to our questions. They are (hopefully) intelligent guesses rather than FACTUAL. >We are a multi-branch retail company, Buildware Market, in South Africa. > We purchased Fourgen as the software to run our business, including aspects >such >as point-of-sale, financials, stock control, etc. We are in the process of >implementing >the software at our first branch. Fourgen is written in Informix, which runs >on Unix. >Our local dealer assures us that several things we thought were possible >are not possible. I'm not convinced, and I would appreciate some external >opinion. >We want to link our office LAN (Microsoft Win for Workgroups) to the Fourgen >system ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You may need to buy additional networking s/w for the SCO server to do this. It will depend on the type of network you already have and the networking protocol that it uses. >running on Unix. We are told that Win for Workgroups does not have suitable >terminal >emulators to log in to the Unix box, and that we need to purchase terminal >emulation >software called I-Net for EACH PC on the LAN, at a cost of US$235 per PC. >This sounds excessive. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I-NET is more likely to be the Informix product for client-server communication. This is NOT a terminal emulator. There are terminal emulators out there for use under windows that are very usable. They are very cheap (I would expect less than $50). You will probably need to purchase PC/TCP for each PC that is to connect to the Unix host. Your application is, I would assume, character based being written in Fourgen so it should run happily in this environment. Most places seem to use the VT??? emulation provided by these programs. >Furthermore, we are told that it is NOT possible to re-map keyboard keys. >Currently, the >Unix box uses F3 and F4 for Page up and Page down. We have purchased Wyse >terminals >that have a normal PC-style 101 key keyboard. We're told that we can not >re-map >the PgUp, PgDn, End, Home and other keys so that they would perform the >functions one >might expect in, say, a Windows application. This applies both to the dumb >terminals as well >as the PCs on the LAN. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This bit depends on features provided by Fourgen for defining function keys. You are I assume writing the appications yourselfs. Bought in applications are harder to modify. Under Unix terminal capabilites are defined either in a file called termcap or the terminfo database. Assuming Fourgen does not have its own proprietary way of handling terminals, this is where you should be looking to make the modifications you require. You should have no difficulty with remapping PAGE UP, PAGE DOWN and possibly INSERT and DELETE. However a PC and a terminal are not the SAME thing so I don't think you should expect to get identical functionality from the 2. If it is ABSOLUTELY essential that the look and feel of the application is consistent with the way windows programs work then you should opt for a client-server approach (ie use PC development tools to write the applications and connect to the Unix host using INFORMIX-NET and I-NET FOR WINDOWS). >Does FourGen have any GUI which can act as a front end to users on a Windows >network? >Would X-Windows work with Fourgen & Informix? Are there any other ways to >operate >the Fourgen box via Windows? Based on the info you have provided you may need to buy additional s/w to link the SCO server to the LAN. It will depend on the type of network you are running. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your reseller should know this. Ask a direct question. >Another problem we have is that our Unix box operates VERY slowly. We have a >486DX2-66 >with 36MB ram & VESA local bus, 128KB cache, a 2GB SCSI-drive with fast SCSI >controller, >and a 2GB DAT streamer. We have the Informix Online engine, SCO Unix >(the latest version, I'm not sure of the number), and the latest version of >Fourgen Tools >(I think it's 4.12). When we only have four users logged on, and we're doing >purchase orders, >the system nearly grinds to a halt. Our item master consists of about 6000 >stock items, and we >have about 200 suppliers; so our database is not really that large. Why >could the system be so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Depends on how you have configured online. I suggest you use tbstat/tbmonitor V4/5 or onstat/onmonitor V6+ to determine where your performance bottleneck is. Are you using cooked files or raw devices for db? Raw is quicker. You mentioned earlier that you have 3 or 4 applications that you will enventually be running. If these apps are going to run concurrently you may need a bigger box. This will depend on the number of users, size of db etc. You should consider getting a second hard disk and putting the db on that. This will improve i/o throughput. You only need to do this if the performance is not acceptable after you have done the tuning exercise. >slow? PLEASE help us with this, as we have to go live in about 2 weeks >time!!! (20 July is LIVE date) >I have a further question: apparently a Unix drive can get fragmented just >like a FAT drive can. >How does one fix this? How does one tidy up all the fragments of mess that >may be lying around? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It does make a difference to performance if you archive the filesystems and recreate them. This depends on how frequently you create/delete files in the filesystem. My guess would be that this is not your problem. 1/2 times a year is probably all you should consider (max). Any help greatly appreciated, and if you're in South Africa, we'll invite you to our opening party, which promises to be one to remember! Greg Frank You will probably get some different opionions to this! Mark Denham BBC London, UK Mark.Denham@bbc.co.uk