Re: Tablespace size

Neil Truby wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.291.1235126466.1831.informix-list@iiug.org... >> Neil Truby wrote: >>> "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message >>> news:mailman.290.1235123545.1831.informix-list@iiug.org... >>>> Neil Truby wrote: >>>>> Does the 16g page tabelspace maxiumum still apply in IDS 11 please? >>>> Yes. >>> Thanks for the reply. >>> >>> That's quite a disappointment. >>> >>> I imagine that this is quite a fundamental thing to address, or it would >>> have been already, but I think Informix Development is going to have to >>> Grasp the Nettle on this. I find it becoming an increasingly important >>> factor in physical database design and administration. Sure, you can >>> fragment around it, but this doesn't chime well with IBM's messaging >>> about Informix ("Set it and Forget it", etc) ... >> 99% of DBA's /do/ just set it and forget it. Don't blame Informix for your >> ineptitude or laziness. > > Er, well, that's a bit harsh. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm > saying that a limitation, which once probably seemed as unlikely ever to be > relevant as a 2g chunk size, is becoming more and more of a consideration as > time goes by. > > And that, although it's fairly simple for an Informix God such as myself to > workaround, the same is not necessarily true of others; that having to use > fragmentation not for its intended purpose but to get around an increasingly > wearisome product limitation is not consistent with the "Low Maintenance" > marketing message; and that it really needs to be addressed. Quick straw poll at http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/ -- have you ever run into this ludicrously low limit. I'm curious to see what people have to say? -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.