Is QM a "low end" product?

#1

From the OpenQm.Org website:

QM remains positioned as a low end product and although it will happily
support quite large user counts we have no plans to implement the
advanced features of products such as IBM's UniVerse. This is not our
market. Indeed, our view is that UniVerse is the obvious growth path
for users who outgrow QM...

Full text here: http://www.openqm.org/id63.htm

Is the lower end of the MV market where QM hopes to find its niche?
would one be making a "mistake" trying to use QM in high-stress
environments?

How do the QM folks define "low end"?

Does anyone have any feedback/results after replacing a MVDB with QM?

--
Kevin Powick

#2

Kevin Powick wrote:

Quote:

From the OpenQm.Org website:

QM remains positioned as a low end product and although it will happily
support quite large user counts we have no plans to implement the
advanced features of products such as IBM's UniVerse. This is not our
market. Indeed, our view is that UniVerse is the obvious growth path
for users who outgrow QM...

Full text here: http://www.openqm.org/id63.htm

Is the lower end of the MV market where QM hopes to find its niche?
would one be making a "mistake" trying to use QM in high-stress
environments?

How do the QM folks define "low end"?

Low cost and feature rich. That was the point of making it a Open Source
Product. What features do you want? QM has them. You just have to use
the tools. Accuterm (GUI?), Coyote Web Server, Nucleus, BRIZ, VB, GDI,
PHP, etc, etc ... The back end is a Multi-Flavored MV database.

Patrick, <;=)

Quote:

Does anyone have any feedback/results after replacing a MVDB with QM?

#3

(latimerp) wrote:

Quote:

Low cost and feature rich. That was the point of making it a Open
Source Product. What features do you want?

Performance is the primary feature I'm always looking for. Fast
selects and file I/O.

I've downloaded the Win32 personal edition and started tinkering in my
spare time. I've run into a little "weirdness" while writing to a
file, but will post such questions to the QM group.

--
Kevin Powick

#4

Kevin Powick wrote:

Quote:

(latimerp) wrote:

Low cost and feature rich. That was the point of making it a Open
Source Product. What features do you want?

Performance is the primary feature I'm always looking for. Fast
selects and file I/O.

I've downloaded the Win32 personal edition and started tinkering in my
spare time. I've run into a little "weirdness" while writing to a
file, but will post such questions to the QM group.

Pay attention to how you create the files and at what point you set them

to resize. The type you use with CREATE-FILE is important. Play with the
the "fsync" very carefully in the QM configuration editor. It does have
nice configuration components.

Patrick <;=)

#5

(latimerp) wrote:

Quote:

Pay attention to how you create the files and at what point you set
them to resize.

Thanks. I'll check it out. I simply did a create.file MyFile.

I then wrote a simple basic program to populate the file, writing
records within a loop. It writes for a while, then bombs with an error.

Subsequent attempts to write to, or "clear.file data", the file result
in a "file is read only" error.

Seems odd to allow writes up to a point. Same number of recs each time
-- 19,300.

Read the "Manual"? What is this "manual" you speak of? :-)

--
Kevin Powick

#6

Goo'day, Kevin,

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:09:00 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Powick"
<nospam (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

(latimerp) wrote:

Pay attention to how you create the files and at what point you set
them to resize.

Thanks. I'll check it out. I simply did a create.file MyFile.

I then wrote a simple basic program to populate the file, writing
records within a loop. It writes for a while, then bombs with an error.

Subsequent attempts to write to, or "clear.file data", the file result
in a "file is read only" error.

Seems odd to allow writes up to a point. Same number of recs each time
-- 19,300.

I reckon Martin might leap in here..... That way, you'll witness first
hand the support we've all been speaking of....

Quote:

Read the "Manual"? What is this "manual" you speak of? :-)

Part of the download is a full set of .pdf docs... That's what makes
the thing a 5Mb d/load for the Winblows version.... They should be at
....\qmsys\docs ...
Regards,

Bruce Nichol
Talon Computer Services
ALBURY NSW Australia

http://www.taloncs.com.au

If it ain't broke, fix it until it is....

#7

AHHHH! Got it...

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:09:00 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Powick"
<nospam (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

(latimerp) wrote:

Pay attention to how you create the files and at what point you set
them to resize.

Thanks. I'll check it out. I simply did a create.file MyFile.

I then wrote a simple basic program to populate the file, writing
records within a loop. It writes for a while, then bombs with an error.

Subsequent attempts to write to, or "clear.file data", the file result
in a "file is read only" error.

The "personal edition" has a limited file size for writing...... Half
a Mb?

Quote:

Seems odd to allow writes up to a point. Same number of recs each time
-- 19,300.

Read the "Manual"? What is this "manual" you speak of? :-)
Regards,

Bruce Nichol
Talon Computer Services
ALBURY NSW Australia

http://www.taloncs.com.au

If it ain't broke, fix it until it is....

#8

Frankly, whilst I've not played too much with OpenQM, this sounds like QM is
not playing "high" enough.. From what I've seen, I don't see any major
scalability issues with OpenQM. The marketing should perhaps position
OpenQM as being "compact", "high-performance", "competitively priced" but I
can't see why it would be considered "low-end" by it's developers...

The definition of where it lays in terms of high/low end, is subjective, and
should be left to the purchaser. Just another one of my worthless 2 euros..

It would be interesting to see what features of UniVerse OpenQM will not be
implementing.

Regards
Simon
"Kevin Powick" <nospam (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

From the OpenQm.Org website:

QM remains positioned as a low end product and although it will happily
support quite large user counts we have no plans to implement the
advanced features of products such as IBM's UniVerse. This is not our
market. Indeed, our view is that UniVerse is the obvious growth path
for users who outgrow QM...

Full text here: http://www.openqm.org/id63.htm

Is the lower end of the MV market where QM hopes to find its niche?
would one be making a "mistake" trying to use QM in high-stress
environments?

How do the QM folks define "low end"?

Does anyone have any feedback/results after replacing a MVDB with QM?

--
Kevin Powick

#9

Hi Kevin
The manuals are extensive and the path that Bruce gave is correct it is
just a little strange for D3 types to look in what appears to be the master
dictionary under Windows Explorer. I am quite sure his explantaion is
correct , you hit the limit for an unlicensed version. Given that on
another thread we seem to have a commercial user trying to use unlicensed
versions I say hooray for Martin. By the way if you are developing products
just register and your problems will vanish

I may disagree with the view that Universe is preferable to D3 however. I
well remember dumping Universe when I found that some prat had "enhanced"
the INPUT @ command by making it destroy formatted screens. I reported it
as a bug and got an "informed opinion" that it was a feature ,
Unfortunately the "expert" recommended the use of PRINT @...;INPUT VAR
obviously he had never actually written any commercial code. I was not
prepared wasting my time looking for other "feature bugs" and my oinion was
confirmed when on a later job I discovered that the BTREES were so
unreliabale that the first step to rectification of errors was to rebuild
them. I hope that they have improved..
Peter Mcmurray
"Kevin Powick" <nospam (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

(latimerp) wrote:

Pay attention to how you create the files and at what point you set
them to resize.

Thanks. I'll check it out. I simply did a create.file MyFile.

I then wrote a simple basic program to populate the file, writing
records within a loop. It writes for a while, then bombs with an error.

Subsequent attempts to write to, or "clear.file data", the file result
in a "file is read only" error.

Seems odd to allow writes up to a point. Same number of recs each time
-- 19,300.

Read the "Manual"? What is this "manual" you speak of? :-)

--
Kevin Powick

#10

Hi
What is low end? I remember being quite concerned when I heard that D3 was
lowend and one needed to consider MVBase then I discovered that the problem
with D3 was that over 500 users the spooler got a bit antsy. I think that
you can safely say my problems vanished.
Peter McMurray
"Simon Verona" <nomail (AT) nomail (DOT) zzz> wrote

Quote:

Frankly, whilst I've not played too much with OpenQM, this sounds like QM
is not playing "high" enough.. From what I've seen, I don't see any major
scalability issues with OpenQM. The marketing should perhaps position
OpenQM as being "compact", "high-performance", "competitively priced" but
I can't see why it would be considered "low-end" by it's developers...

The definition of where it lays in terms of high/low end, is subjective,
and should be left to the purchaser. Just another one of my worthless 2
euros..

It would be interesting to see what features of UniVerse OpenQM will not
be implementing.

Regards
Simon
"Kevin Powick" <nospam (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:xn0ejox4k384ju000 (AT) aioe (DOT) cjb.net...
From the OpenQm.Org website:

QM remains positioned as a low end product and although it will happily
support quite large user counts we have no plans to implement the
advanced features of products such as IBM's UniVerse. This is not our
market. Indeed, our view is that UniVerse is the obvious growth path
for users who outgrow QM...

Full text here: http://www.openqm.org/id63.htm

Is the lower end of the MV market where QM hopes to find its niche?
would one be making a "mistake" trying to use QM in high-stress
environments?

How do the QM folks define "low end"?

Does anyone have any feedback/results after replacing a MVDB with QM?

--
Kevin Powick