You might be right. I think it's different in the UK. Support is not great and this is for things that aren't our fault. They are things that blatantly don't work, are bugs or just arent logical at alk. Some of our calls have taken 6-24 months before I get a response and the response usually involves upgrading with it being so long between logging the call and a response. We are at the point now where we are not logging any calls because we know what the response is going to be.
Chris Thompson
Chris Thompson
On 17 Jun 2013, at 19:09, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...> wrote:
> I really think Epicor Support is sufficient. Support is not there to fix customers’ mistakes, bad BAQ queries, awry customizations, how-to’s, what-if’s, infrastructure anomalies and the like. That’s what consultants are for. Yes, I’ve certainly had to “shake the tree†once or twice in my 14 years with Epicor, but for the most part, they’re alright. I also disagree about R&D dollars, Epicor does reinvest the majority of our annual maint into R&D. IMO, I think it shows.
>
> I’ve worked with QAD, Syteline, Dynamics, SAP, M2K, Sage, Fourth Shift, ManManX, and MAPICS (Pivotpoint)…… they all shadow in comparison to Epicor IMO. Epicor is relatively cheaper than most, too.
>
> I always joke and say Epicor is the best of the worst… :-)
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:07 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Separating AppServers and Database
>
> I really don't know but there has got to be something better out there with more support and more r&d.
>
> Chris Thompson
>
> On 15 Jun 2013, at 19:03, "b_ordway" <cooner_55421@... <mailto:cooner_55421%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > >>Looking to reduce the issues as a company
> > >>by moving to another erp
> > Just curious - what other ERP system?
> > I'm sure I'm not alone in "loving to hate Epicor" but... the other systems I've worked with really were no different/better.
> >
> > I do know of a few sites that have actually switched ERP systems.
> > A lot of time and money later, their conditions seem basically the same to me.
> >
> > >there is no erp silver bullet
> > Nothing about ERP systems seems simple or easy to me.
> > Initial expectations are usually very high while reality is... not so much.
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , Jose Gomez <jose@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure about your issues but in my experience there is no erp silver
> > > bullet unfortunately any erp system tog are going to have to tweak and
> > > customize to meet your needs and that is usually cheaper than a whole new
> > > implementation
> > >
> > > My 2 cents
> > > On Jun 15, 2013 7:21 AM, "Chris Thompson" <chriselectrix@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for venting. Looking to reduce the issues as a company by moving
> > > > to another erp
> > > >
> > > > Chris Thompson
> > > >
> > > > On 15 Jun 2013, at 01:10, "Ned" <TechnoBabbly@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bashing the program doesn't really accomplish anything, and while
> > > > everyone needs to vent once in awhile, it's been the general rule of the
> > > > group that this is a group to help one another with the program, not as a
> > > > platform for bashing it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The majority of companies don't have the level of problems you appear to
> > > > have, that should say something.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > > > Behalf Of Chris Thompson
> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:24 AM
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Separating AppServers and Database
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh then 15 minutes each morning where only a handful of users can log
> > > > in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Thompson
> > > > >
> > > > > On 14 Jun 2013, at 15:44, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, that's what you get for keeping inventory on-hand. Practice
> > > > LEAN/JIT and your problems will disappear.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (joking of course)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wow, that does sound painful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Chris Thompson
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:33 AM
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Separating AppServers and Database
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5 hours to run inventory wip reconciliation? That's if it doesn't
> > > > crash all the users out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris Thompson
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 14 Jun 2013, at 15:28, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@... <mailto:vic.drecchio@...%3cmailto:%0b> <mailto:
> > > > vic.drecchio%40swepcotube.com> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Define "performance issues" ?? Good gosh, my 8.03.409C (progress)
> > > > > > > runs on a server almost 7 years old and serves 40 users absolutely
> > > > > > > fine. Yeah, there's the occasional long wait, but for the most part,
> > > > > > > she runs fine. Or, maybe I've just grown accustomed to status quo.
> > > > > > > But in my defense, I'm pretty picky. Lol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > ]
> > > > > > > On Behalf Of Joseph
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:47 AM
> > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Re: Separating AppServers and Database
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We recently upgraded to 7.05.902 with fusion i/o drives and are
> > > > > > > still having performance issues. we are trying to figure out the
> > > > > > > best route to improve the performance the next thing we are going to
> > > > > > > try is adding another appserver that we set up for users in one
> > > > > > > remote office to use to see if that will help out the performance
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "s1mhall" <s1mhall@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looking forward to V10, but not the pain in between times. We
> > > > > > > > still have
> > > > > > > our CRM, and support teams to migrate. Then work on adding all the
> > > > > > > rest such as APM plus, EPM, and Portal......I'm tired just thinking
> > > > about it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > S
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , xorone
> > > > > > > <xorone@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With regards to your SSD references. Â They DO give Vantage a
> > > > > > > significant performance boost.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: "Winter, Patrick" <pjw@>
> > > > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:30 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Separating AppServers and Database
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > Epicor would probably reply with that is exactly what we have
> > > > > > > > > done in
> > > > > > > V10 with a clean stack on SQL only.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Patrick Winter
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:05
> > > > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: Separating AppServers and Database
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does no one else think Epicor are just taking advantage to make
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > poorly written software run after instead of fixing it in the first
> > > > place?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chris Thompson
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 13 Jun 2013, at 17:07, "laraines422" <laraines422@
> > > > > > > <mailto:laraines422%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Simon:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the post. We're starting our upgrade project to E9
> > > > > > > > > > - and we
> > > > > > > really debated about the hardware specifications. We finally decided
> > > > > > > to bite the bullet and purchase SSD's for the new server.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your post helps to validate our decision - thank you!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Laraine
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "s1mhall" <s1mhall@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have to agree with Jose here. We burnt 6 months of our
> > > > > > > implementation project with tooing and froeing with regards to the
> > > > > > > hardware setup. We initially had everything virtualized with SQL on
> > > > > > > a separate host and a dedicated 10Gb link between the host servers.
> > > > > > > We had a 4 node NLB cluster. Performance was average and we were
> > > > > > > seeing our performance results in the high end of the acceptable
> > > > > > > range based on the Epicor Performance tuning guide.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If I were to go down the NLB route again then I'd be
> > > > > > > > > > > investigating
> > > > > > > F5 load balancers and hang the expense.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately the guide does not give any benchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > statistics on
> > > > > > > time entry, which would have been very helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Convinced that an upgrade to 701 would resolve the issues we
> > > > > > > > > > > went
> > > > > > > down that path with very little improvement. Finally after a
> > > > > > > hardware review conducted with Epicor we ditched Hyper-v and took
> > > > > > > one of the hosts and installed SQL 2008 R2, Progress Open Edge and
> > > > > > > Epicor 9. We have seen a marginal improvement.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Submitting time can take from anywhere to 2-4 seconds on a
> > > > > > > > > > > good day
> > > > > > > and if you are a remote user then you are destined to wait longer
> > > > > > > (compression is enabled for remote users and that has helped).
> > > > > > > Epicor Web Access is used only for users who have a Mac and we may
> > > > > > > even migrate them to use the rich client on parallels. EWA is slower
> > > > > > > that the rich client to remote sites. Performing a Build Project
> > > > > > > Analysis (key step in project
> > > > > > > billing) takes about 4 minutes per project! Apparently there are
> > > > > > > some Build Project Analysis performance improvements in 702.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Performance wise what we have seen is that using External
> > > > > > > > > > > BAQs where
> > > > > > > possible gives you a huge boost. We have performed some simple
> > > > > > > comparisons, although not flushing the SQL procedure cache etc.
> > > > > > > between tests, but complex BAQs certainly do benefit from building a
> > > > > > > view in SQL first. Just a shame you can't do it for stored
> > > > procedures as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On a further note about our time testing performance around
> > > > > > > submitting time. Testing using the education database, our Tech
> > > > > > > support person at Epicor was running rings around our performance
> > > > > > > stats and he was running E9 on a notebook with 2 SSDs! We have a 4
> > > > > > > CPU 10 Core server with 196GB of RAM with 6 SAS disks in RAID 10!
> > > > > > > Other consultants I have discussed performance issues with, say they
> > > > > > > have seen some huge improvements using Fusion I/O cards, nice if you
> > > > have the budget.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As Jose says, in most instances there is very little gain
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > tweaking the environment and you can waste a lot of time
> > > > > > > reconfiguring. I agree, been there done that, ouch!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Get the right hardware, get SSDs and be done with it! All of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > users will thank you for it. If you don't have the budget then
> > > > > > > perhaps it's time to turn E9 into shelfware and go back to market.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Epicor do have some white papers about performance (search
> > > > > > > > > > > epicweb
> > > > > > > for performance white paper). The early one around 2011 includes all
> > > > > > > the details as to what equipment they used and how they went about
> > > > > > > it. Please make sure you are sitting down when you read the hardware
> > > > > > > specs. Apparently it was done in a Microsoft Lab using Visual Studio
> > > > > > > tools to produce simulated transactional loads. The latter one
> > > > > > > focuses on performance improvements between versions. I have not
> > > > > > > checked recently if they have done an update.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for the long rant er... post.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "jseeman21" <jseeman@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We are currently running Epicor 905.701 and though we see
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > performance improvements from earlier versions, we are still looking
> > > > > > > to achieve better performance.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It was suggested that we separate our appservers from the
> > > > > > > database. I feel silly asking this but can someone provide
> > > > > > > instruction on how to do this? We are currently running a Progress
> > > > > > > 64Bit environment. The entire epicor905 directory resides on a
> > > > separate raid 10.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, we are also looking at using SSD drives. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > mentioned you can separate out just the DB onto another drive. Does
> > > > > > > anyone have instruction on how to isolate the epicor905\db directory?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you in advance for any assistance.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jill Seeman
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must
> > > > have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
> > > > > (1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder
> > > > and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> > > > > (2) To search through old msg's goto:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
> > > > > (3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]