Pervasive Psql V11 Keygen For Mac 515b946325 Pervasive Psql V11 Keygen Download. 7/4/2017 0 Comments Download autodesk autocad 2016 crack download free download winamp terbaru full version Star - Update. Can I use Pervasive 11.3 with all Versions of CYMA? Pervasive 11.3 has only been tested with CYMA 14, CYMA 13.5, and CYMA 13. Simpleware scan ip free download. Pervasive SQL v.8 and 98SE After installation of Pervasive SQL v.8 in Widows 98SE I have a terrible crap in a dialog window 'ODBC Data Sources'. Is there any patch for 98SE to solve such a problem? Question about Peachtree Premium Accounting 2009.

1. Pervasive Sql V11 Crack Free
2. Pervasive Sql V11 Crack 10

One large server, as much fast disk as you can afford. OBR10 for the VMs.

ESXi on a SD card. You give no hint on RAM, but if you can get away with 32GB, ESXi Free. If not, Essentials. For $500 you get backup API and licenses for additional hosts if you ever need them.I fall in the camp that does not worry about failure. Hardware is rock solid these days. You will have less chance of the new hardware filing than one of your existing server doing so.

Plus, as workloads become more and more integrated, using multiple physical boxes to different workloads does not really mitigate risk. Chances are, if one ges down, some other workload will be dependent on it. I have about 20 physical servers, between 5 years and 2 months old. I've had 1 fail with something other than HDD in the 3 years I've been here. Get 24/7 4 hour support and you're good to go.

PeterB123 wrote:My guess on costs would be $3K per server (need two), $2-3K for the two switches and configuration support, and $5K for the SAN (build it yourself) with 10TB of storage.And you'll want a SAN that is fast (think 10Gbit or quad 1Gbit) and connected to both switches in case one switch fails. Each server should also have multiple NICs connected to both switches (twin 10Gbit or quad 1Gbit per server) in case of switch/server failure.First things first.1. A SAN is a Storage Area Network. Something you put on a SAN that has disks in it, is called a Shared Disk Array.

This is like talking about driving a road.2. For 2 servers it is a waste of performance, that adds cost, complexity, adds only limited flexibility in niche cases at scale.3. $5K for a single motherboard, single controller shared disk array for 10TB is interesting. What happens when this device fails and the other two servers don't have access? What disks are you planning on using to achieve this?2 x 4TB 7200 RPM SATA drive = 8TB Capacity / 150 IOps16 x 500GB 10K RPM SAS drive = 8TB Capacity / 2400 IOpsTalking about capacity without performance is really pointless.

Its like saying I get 30MPG, but not knowing how big your gas tank is before you set off to drive between el paso and San Antonio.RAID also impacts this, and the read/write mix factors also with that selection.PeterB123 wrote:And you'll want a SAN that is fast (think 10Gbit or quad 1Gbit) and connected to both switches in case one switch fails. Each server should also have multiple NICs connected to both switches (twin 10Gbit or quad 1Gbit per server) in case of switch/server failure.In small deployments throughput is normally useless. Its all about random IO, buffer size, PPS on the switch etc.

I can throw out a $1500 10Gbps switch to use, but users will want to murder the sysadmin if they run iSCSI traffic on it.PeterB123 wrote:My guess on costs would be $3K per server (need two), $2-3K for the two switches and configuration support,Ideally iSCSI if your using it for SAN switching goes on a different switch. At a minimum this is too small of a budget for switches that are actually rated for wirespeed. You MIGHT be able to squeeze a pair of 2910AL's in for this, but you shouldn't share them for LAN/WAN if your digging this deep for storage.

Again, Direct connection to the array (or replicated local storage) is going to be cheaper, easier, faster. Good 10Gbps switches that can handle this (Force10,VDX,mid range ICX) are going to run you closer to 20K for a pair. (I don't consider 8xxx power connects fit really for storage networking).PeterB123 wrote:Two caveats when it comes to virtualization:1. High availability2. Backup/restorePlan for failure so you're not surprised and you'll have higher uptime and quicker recovery.High Availability can be done at the application layer. REAL HA, is the applications seamlessly taking over.

(Active Dirrectory, Exchange DAG, Oracle RMAN). Real HA you don't need shared storage for, in fact it works against you. The reason for shared storage in virutalization is so you don't have to shut down a lot of systems to do host patches/maintence. Its for flexibility more so than up-time. Scott Alan Miller wrote:PeterB123 wrote:And you'll want a SAN that is fast (think 10Gbit or quad 1Gbit) and connected to both switches in case one switch fails. Each server should also have multiple NICs connected to both switches (twin 10Gbit or quad 1Gbit per server) in case of switch/server failure.You can skip the SAN, go even faster and avoid the risk entirely. SAN just adds risk and slows you down while costing a lot of money unnecessarily.Talking about throughput instead of IOPS, is talking about I10 being 12 lanes wide, and ignoring the fact that right now its averaging 5Mph.If your buying crappy 10Gbps switching, that small 1Gbps path (like the small farm to market road) is going to be a MUCH better path.

(or a direct FC, to SAS connection, like a toll road is even faster!). Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:Unfortunately, we don't have the budget for 2 servers plus a NAS.Why would you need two plus NAS?I'm not sure what we need, but that was one of the suggestions. I am sure that we don't want a single point of failure.If we purchase 1 new server to run the other 3, it will need to be sized appropriately.

One thought is to convert the current DC server to a backup VM server, as it is the newest server we own. It is only 1 cpu (Quad Core Xeon E5606, no hyperthreading but it does have VT-x and VT-d). Would that be sufficient to run the other 3 servers as VM's? Our Terminal Server supports 10 employees in the field, although they are not all logged in simultaneously. Timberline runs a Pervasive database. Not sure if we want to run a virtual domain controller, but the File Server should not consume many resources.We don't need failover, We can survive 2+ hours of downtime. I would assume it would be best to leave it offline, and should we run into any issues, we can power it up and spin up our servers from backup within a few hours.

Pervasive Sql V11 Crack Free

Bigbrewbowski wrote:Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:Unfortunately, we don't have the budget for 2 servers plus a NAS.Why would you need two plus NAS?I'm not sure what we need, but that was one of the suggestions. I am sure that we don't want a single point of failure.Well two plus a NAS is definitely a single point of failure.

And worse than a single one because it is one single plus some additional points of failure.But are you SURE you don't want a single point of failure? This has become a manta of IT recently but generally it isn't true. Have you done full business analysis to see how much an outage costs you? In the SMB, outages are generally cheap but uptime is expensive. Don't make the mistake of thinking you need redundancy without having done business analysis to determine this. Chances are, a single point of failure is ideal.

Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:We don't need failover, We can survive 2+ hours of downtime.This statement can be reworded as 'we don't need redundancy, we should just have a single server and nothing else.' A good support contract on an enterprise server is extremely reliable, easy to manage, cheap and they come to replace your parts in 4 hours.Don't look at all these complex options. One good server. That's all you need. Anything more is likely just taking cash and setting it on fire.W e have Outlook 365, so if both go down, at least we still have email if there are any server issues. I can see your point, if we lose either the file server or timberline, it severely hampers the company. Having only one of them operating is better than none, but not by a whole lot.

Bigbrewbowski wrote:Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:We don't need failover, We can survive 2+ hours of downtime.This statement can be reworded as 'we don't need redundancy, we should just have a single server and nothing else.' A good support contract on an enterprise server is extremely reliable, easy to manage, cheap and they come to replace your parts in 4 hours.Don't look at all these complex options. One good server. That's all you need.

Anything more is likely just taking cash and setting it on fire.W e have Outlook 365, so if both go down, at least we still have email if there are any server issues. I can see your point, if we lose either the file server or timberline, it severely hampers the company. Having only one of them operating is better than none, but not by a whole lot.Exactly. A typical company wants everything up at once. And if you do the split load you double the chances of having 'something' fail.

Sure it is only half of the systems, but it happens twice as often.For some companies, a half outage for a day doesn't matter. For others, a half outage might as well be a full outage. So it depends.But if everything can be down for a few hours with minimal impact (we are talking extremely rare occurrence here.) then saving thousands or tens of thousands of dollars today is likely worth the risk of losing a few hundred, maybe, sometime in the future. Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:I looked into profiling our servers, haven't found a working solution yet - Win2003 doesn't support Microsoft Assesment and Planning Toolkit.Dell DPACK is free. If you go to a Dell reseller you will get sold an (it's the only thing that they sell out of a DPACK assessment) but if you go to a consulting partner they can read your results and help you understand what works for you.I don't feel comfortable exercising any vendors.

Especially if I have no intention of purchasing any servers from them. Are there any free or low cost profiling solutions? I run the IT shop for a diversified construction and manufacturing company. We deployed Sage 300 CRE (Timberline Office) 9.8 not quite a year ago as part of a complete re-vamp of the entire technology infrastructure. I'm currently testing the 13.1 upgrade for rollout after our March audit.

I have about 85 workstations with Sage Desktop installed, plus a 20 user Remote Desktop server for our guys on the outside.There is a lot of garbage in this thread, I don't know where 10Gbe comes from but somebody needs to step back from the crack pipe. In paleontology that would be called 'telling an amazing story with only a bone fragment to work with'.Virtualizing absolutely as much as you can, including your Sage server, is the only way to go. Full stop.The push for SAN is silly, you're almost certainly better off with direct attached storage. VMWare makes this more complicated than it should be which is why I went with Windows Server 2012 Data Center Edition on my primary host.

Pervasive Sql V11 Crack 10

I use asynchronous replication to an off-site Hyper-V 3.0 target server for the most critical servers. Cheap and cheerful is good, right? The target server has gobs of storage but only enough juice to run a DC/RD Server/Sage/Exchange, enough to get us by until we can rebuild the burnt-down main building.

The 5 minute replication cycle means we won't lose much, if anything. It will take us longer to get a generator trailer fired up and much longer to buy tables and new desktops to put in the south parking lot than to get our critical servers back up and running.With no Exchange to worry about, I would expect your single Xeon server to be a good candidate for your replication target, assuming you have a safe place to stash it.Data gets backed up over the same bonded 2 x 1 Gbe connection and my backup window of 2+ TB of data files and 300+ GB of Exchange data is less than 2 hrs a night. If you run the STO server you know it's a PITA to backup, so a full nightly VM backup in addition to replication is a no brainer. I use shadow copies on the target server (Win2012 Standard physical) so I have 30+ days to recover stuff. I just pulled a folder from 12/12/13 last week in about 90 seconds.The VM for Sage started with 4 CPU and 10 GB and I bumped it to 20 GB hoping to get more RAM utilization, but that's another story. Performance is more than good unless a My Assistant job runs over time, that's always a bit of a bummer.

I'm looking forward to Pervasive SQL 11 in 13.1 in hopes of better using the available resources. I can't emphasize enough all the myriad ways that virtualization makes life better, but this is another one.Spinning up a pair of servers to fully test the data migration AND do training for the end-user 'leads' for 13.1 was a given, and part of the evil master plan from the outset.

Doing the same thing in a physical server environment would be far more difficult and expensive but still worth it.As part of the migration, I P2V'd some older servers for the transition, and did away with other servers in toto as I saw fit. The soft rollover to a virtualized environment was another nice feature.Physical DC's are a stupid and a waste of money. Dump every server you can and focus on your primary VM host.For the Sage server I am running it on a 4 drive SAS RAID 10 with little 10K rpm Seagates.

The new Sage 300 13.1 server is going to live on a RAID10 array of 6 SSD's. I have 18 months of experience with SSD's in RAID arrays to draw from and am now comfortable with that. As you know, Pervasive is very sensitive to disk I/O and though I see no disk queue bottlenecking, I'm looking for at least a little bump in performance. For the network layer, again latency is an issue, so having every client on Gigabit Ethernet is an advantage. Yes, Sage does run semi-decently on the WiFi network, but 'just 'cause you can, don't mean you should' and putting your network layer up for review is definitely worthwhile.Feel free to PM me if you have further questions.Regards,Brian in CA. Brianinca wrote:There is a lot of garbage in this thread, I don't know where 10Gbe comes from but somebody needs to step back from the crack pipe. In paleontology that would be called 'telling an amazing story with only a bone fragment to work with'.People assume its magically faster/better, and that GOOD cheap 10Gbps iSCSI switches are falling off trees.Brianinca wrote:The push for SAN is silly, you're almost certainly better off with direct attached storage.

VMWare makes this more complicated than it should be which is why I went with Windows Server 2012 Data Center Edition on my primary host.How does VMware make DAS complicated?Plugin DAS, create RAID, create Datastore. Pretty simple.

They even have a VSA (and soon) a VSAN option for direct attached storage.If your doing Shared DAS (with more than one host) then Hyper-V's lack of a real clustered filesytem makes things weird and complicated.. Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:I looked into profiling our servers, haven't found a working solution yet - Win2003 doesn't support Microsoft Assesment and Planning Toolkit.Dell DPACK is free. If you go to a Dell reseller you will get sold an (it's the only thing that they sell out of a DPACK assessment) but if you go to a consulting partner they can read your results and help you understand what works for you.Just worked with PCM, did a DPACK assessment, and they used it to put together a single server solution as the host for my virtual infrastructure, per my request. BeeCee JibJab McGab wrote:Scott Alan Miller wrote:Bigbrewbowski wrote:I looked into profiling our servers, haven't found a working solution yet - Win2003 doesn't support Microsoft Assesment and Planning Toolkit.Dell DPACK is free. If you go to a Dell reseller you will get sold an (it's the only thing that they sell out of a DPACK assessment) but if you go to a consulting partner they can read your results and help you understand what works for you.Just worked with PCM, did a DPACK assessment, and they used it to put together a single server solution as the host for my virtual infrastructure, per my request.Awesome.