Re: relative pathnames for chunks
Bill
The rename restore approach will only allow you to create a SINGLE instance
on a machine. If you need multiple instances then you will still have to use
relative paths on all machines.
Like I said, I have never had a problem receiving tech support. In fact,
tech support have actually told some customers that I have worked for to use
this approach when more than one copy of an instance is required on a single
machine.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dare" <dareb@jevic.com>
To: <informix-list@iiug.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 09:25
Subject: RE: relative pathnames for chunks
> Thanks for all the responses. I called tech support and they say using
> relative paths works, but is not officially supported.
>
> What I am trying to do is what Mark describes below, create multiple
copies
> af an instance on a single machine. Tech support recommends I look into a
> rename restore with onbar. Sounds like that will work for me.
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Denham [SMTP:mkdenham@comcast.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:52 PM
> > To: Bill Dare
> > Cc: ilist
> > Subject: Re: relative pathnames for chunks
> >
> > Used them for years and have always found them to be supported by tech
> > support.
> >
> > In fact there have been a number of bugs raised over the years against
> > tools
> > such as onmonitor and onspaces for not supporting them correctly.
> >
> > They are extremely useful for enabling you to create multiple copies of
an
> > instance on a single machine. Many Peoplesoft customers do this to
create
> > all the test instances that you need during upgrades and for providing
> > enough environments for developers.
> >
> > In most cases these instances will be image copies of the production
> > system,
> > restored from a backup or taken from a simple dd.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Dare" <dareb@jevic.com>
> > To: <informix-list@iiug.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 15:19
> > Subject: relative pathnames for chunks
> >
> >
> > > Anyone know if it is OK to use a relative path to chunks. I have
links
> > to
> > > my raw devices in $INFORMIXDIR/links. I would like to use a path
> > relative
> > > to $INFORMIXDIR for all my chunks. onspaces adds chunks that way OK
and
> > I
> > > was able to store data on those chunks. But, from the manual:
> > >
> > > Specifying Names for Storage Spaces and Chunks
> > > Chunk names follow the same rules as storage-space names. Specify an
> > > explicit pathname for a storage space or chunk as follows:
> > >
> > > Would a relative path be explicit? Anybody ever done this?
> > >
> > > I figured I'd check here before blowing away the database and starting
> > over
> > > with all relative paths.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > sending to informix-list
> >
> > sending to informix-list
> sending to informix-list
sending to informix-list
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:47:37 -0400, "Mark Denham" <mkdenham@comcast.net> wrote: > >Bill > >The rename restore approach will only allow you to create a SINGLE instance >on a machine. If you need multiple instances then you will still have to use >relative paths on all machines. > >Like I said, I have never had a problem receiving tech support. In fact, >tech support have actually told some customers that I have worked for to use >this approach when more than one copy of an instance is required on a single >machine. > >Mark > Any FAQ on how to do this?