# Re-hosting production application on Open Systems **URL:** \ **Category:** Forum\ **Tags:** Adabas-Natural, Adabas, Adabas-Basics-on-Linux-Unix-Windows, Adabas-on-Windows-UNIX, Adabas-on-Linux\ **Created:** [November 24, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228 "2009-11-24T01:07:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ralph\_Zbrog](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/user_avatar/techcommunity.softwareag.com/ralph_zbrog/32/78_2.png) [@Ralph\_Zbrog](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Ralph_Zbrog)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/1 "2009-11-24T01:07:06Z")
Under zOS, my client processes 1 billion Adabas calls per week against 350G of data. Several development and test databases have proved that the components of the primary Natural/Adabas application will run on a Windows server. Now we are considering re-hosting the production application to Open Systems (Natural for Windows, and Adabas for Windows or Unix/Linux), but we have many questions. Here are a few: 1 Has anyone run this size of (production) load (1G calls; 350G data) on a Windows or Unix/Linux box? 2 Does Adabas take advantage of Windows or Unix/Linux features that benefit performance? If so, are the benefits so great as to simplify our platform selection? 3 What were the compelling reasons for your choice of operating system? Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Robinson](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/user_avatar/techcommunity.softwareag.com/steve_robinson/32/107_2.png) [@Steve\_Robinson](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Steve_Robinson)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/2 "2009-11-24T04:21:02Z")
Hi Ralph; I have noticed that Adabas (and Natural) performance is greatly improved as memory is made available (more so than on mainframe). I went looking to confirm that Natural still has a limitation of 8 records for MultiFetch. This seems to be absent from the latest documentation. So, either the limitation no longer exists, or the documentation suffered in the last re-write. will check tomorrow. steve ---
**Author:** ![Matthias1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@Matthias1](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Matthias1)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/3 "2009-11-24T12:51:38Z")
> [@Ralph Zbrog](#): > > 1 Has anyone run this size of (production) load (1G calls; 350G data) on a Windows or Unix/Linux box? 55G data, ~ 100M calls, ADABAS 5.1.7 @ Solaris 10 > [@](#): > > 3 What were the compelling reasons for your choice of operating system? My company did the migration before I stared to work there. But my collegues say that there was a big performance improvent compared to the old BS2000 system. ---
**Author:** ![Ralph\_Zbrog](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/user_avatar/techcommunity.softwareag.com/ralph_zbrog/32/78_2.png) [@Ralph\_Zbrog](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Ralph_Zbrog)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/4 "2009-11-25T02:06:18Z")
Steve, I don’t have Nat637 yet, but 636 returns 8 records via Multi-fetch for a local database. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Robinson](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/user_avatar/techcommunity.softwareag.com/steve_robinson/32/107_2.png) [@Steve\_Robinson](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Steve_Robinson)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/5 "2009-11-25T17:14:18Z")
Hi Ralph; Thanks; saved me the trouble of checking (i am also not on 6.3.7). Clearly, if your application uses MultiFetch, this could be a significant difference if you were to pass a large file with say a MultiFetch of 50 or 100. The PC would then incur many more Adabas calls. I will check the Natural documentation again. I know that there used to be a discussion of the 8 record limitation somewhere. I think I have an older Natural still on my laptop; should be able to find out where the discussion is there; then check the latest documentation. steve ---
**Author:** ![Ralph\_Zbrog](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/user_avatar/techcommunity.softwareag.com/ralph_zbrog/32/78_2.png) [@Ralph\_Zbrog](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Ralph_Zbrog)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/6 "2009-11-25T21:28:53Z")
A discussion of Multi-fetch is too detailed for what I was asking in the original post. We know that every batch and on-line component of our application will run reasonably well under Open Systems (we tested with Windows 2003), and we’ll run benchmarks to determine how big a box is needed to approach the throughput of our zOS system, but we’d like to know what other users have experienced, with our levels of volume and with the Windows/Unix/Linux selection. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/original/3X/c/d/cd19967bb605d28a72d77eb83a1cae22f3df2eb8.svg) [@system](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 2:57pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/re-hosting-production-application-on-open-systems/92228/7 "2021-04-02T14:57:47Z")