( ESNUG 464 Item 11 ) ------------------------------------------- [03/30/07]
Subject: ( ESNUG 461 #5 ) A Synchronicity user speaks up for Synchronicity
> Synchronicity. The tool was buggy and they were unable to make most of
> the minor changes that we required. We lost data quite often due to core
> dumps and destroyed databases (DFII) that had to be re-synced or rebuilt!
From: Wayne Kohler <wkohler=user domain=latticesemi not palm>
Hi, John,
I just wanted to make a few quick comments regarding some of the statements
that were made about Synchronicity in ESNUG 461 #5.
We use Synchronicity across multiple sites in the US, and one site in Asia.
It has been extremely reliable, and we have never lost any data. We have
never had any DFII databases corrupted or destroyed as a result of a
Synchronicity bug.
> Synchronicity. As with ClioSoft, Synchronicity would've required several
> fairly difficult scripts to customize for our needs. The speed of these
> scripts alone would have been detrimental to the performance.
Synchronicity works pretty much "out of the box" for us. We have
implemented some customizations. We found this pretty straightforward.
> Synchronicity. During the evaluation, their local AE stayed on our site
> trying to setup our environment for almost a full month. Even so, they
> never got the system working fully. (I assume/hope the tool is easier to
> use today). Based on the demo, the system would have required continual
> day-to-day maintenance and support and we did not have the resources for
> this. Training was required to come up to speed in using the tool. It
> was easy to use from the browser based GUI especially setting up the
> projects and configurations.
Yes, the system is easy to set up and use, and in my experience does not
require "continual day-to-day maintenance and support". Most of our users
come up to speed very quickly on the tools, with minimal informal training.
In the infrequent occasions where we have required technical support from
Synchronicity, we have found them to be extremely responsive and helpful.
> I've seen or heard of many CAD teams who went down the path of moving
> their design teams over to Synchronicity or Cliosoft only to abandon it
> a couple years later. I personally have seen and pushed design teams into
> these tools only to become devastated when I saw the designers figuring
> out innovative ways to work outside of these Data Management systems due
> to its horrible performance.
We have used the Synchronicity tools (versions 3.x and 4.x) to manage many
projects over the past several years, and we have never had any issues with
performance. These were fairly large projects, and we used Synchronicity to
manage a range of data types such as DFII, RTL, test programs, documents,
etc. For our last project, the vault housed many thousands of files, taking
up around 30GB of storage.
I realize that no tool is perfect, but I feel that the Synchronicity tool
suite is being unfairly and harshly judged. Another thing to consider is
that these comments were made based upon evaluations that were performed
2 to 4 years ago! It has come a long way since then!
- Wayne Kohler
Lattice Semiconductor Bethlehem, PA
Index
Next->Item
|
|
