Re: DBU oddity

The sa does not like to work on trivial things like updates. Maddening, when the employer pays for support, I can't recall if this is the version installed during the upgrade to v5r4 or if another upgrade was finally done. Based on the below, I would guess we are way out of date. But, what would I know- the sa is treated like an infallible person.

DBU 7.0

Release Date: 7/14/2006
Installed Date: 7/17/2006

John McKee

-----Original message-----
From: "Schadd" list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:00:29 -0500
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: DBU oddity

John,

Did you contact Prodata's technical support? They are really good and
should be able to help you. I do remember a problem with the updating of a
key field. The current version does not have the issue.

Thank you,
Schadd Gray
Damon Technologies, Inc.
www.damontech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John McKee
Sent: 09/02/2011 2:35 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: DBU oddity

The system has an exit point program installed to associate an IP adress
with a specific device. My involvement is to maintain the datafile.

When networking was started, there weren't a lot of devices, and the
addresses were assigned to 172.16.x.x. The corporate office wants all the
hospitals in the system to convert to a 10.x.x.x addressing method. Since
all the locations use NAT to connect to the private network and then through
the corporate office to the outside world, that doesn't make sense to me.
Is there any rationale for changing addressing behind a NAT firewall?

The above is to explain my second question. I was told that an IP address
for a device needed to be changed from 172.16.x.x to 10.0.x.x - I can't
recall the exact addresses.

The file used for device assignment is keyed by IP address.

Using DBU, I found the old IP address and updated it to the new one. Except
that it didn't update. I had seen this before and wondered about it. This
IP address change was needed rather quickly, so I tried SQL, a simple
UPDATE. That worked.

Is there anything that would explain why DBU would act like it changed the
key field, but didn't - after at least two attempts, but SQL did,
immediately? Only a guess, but is an object lock involved.

John McKee