Re: stupid question re informix version

On Sat, 29 May 1999 at 09:29:12 gburnmore wrote: >>On Sat, 29 May 1999 00:03:56 -0500, Danny Wright ><danwright@cmpmail.com> wrote: > >>I recently switched jobs and don't understand what version of Informix >>I'm running.... >> >> >>Out of habit I implemented a couple of scripts which I included "set >>isolation to dirty read" (an unload and a count scipt) and I was >>surprised to see these returned errors (apparently there is no support >>for transactions the way it is set up). > >Turbo didn't understand dirty read. It does support commit/rollback >and begin work. Not so fast. Some did, if memory serves; without the actual error message you can't really tell. What was it? >>I also see sqlturbo's running, and notice that there is no >>online????.log in the $INFORMIXDIR. This scares me.....I am used to >>running Informix 7.24.UCsomething-or-other. > >SQL-Turbo is old. Yes, it is. Look though in $INFORMIXDIR/etc for *.log; the default was sqlturbo.log but was usually renamed, just like now. >>We're running on SCO-UNIX (which is scary enough), and performance is >>very bad (I write that off to the kind of machine we're running on, and >>the fact that Informix version seems to be outdated), it almost seems >>like we're running Standard Engine, instead of Online. > >No, Turbo was the predicessor to On-Line. Oh, and before you slam >SCO, Informix runs better on it than it does on NT among others. We've >no complaints from our customers running SCO. Still, SCO wasn't anything too great back then. Consider Linux and a newer copy of Informix. >>I could be wrong, but I thought Standard Engine always used flat files >>for DB storage > >Flat files? Yes, you're wrong. No, he's right, assuming that you include ISAM files that depend on the file system. Some of the data is binary (numerics, for example) but it definitely does use file system type files, subject to all the problems flat files have. The database he is running does NOT use flat files, though, for obvious reasons. >>I also though SE was so old, noone would even consider >>it). > >Another incorrect statement. SE is still around and kicking. Still a pretty good engine. >>Anyway, unless SE has been upgraded to use raw disk space I think >>we may be running it. Also where could the Informix logs be? > >No, you're running turbo. Sqlturbo gives it away. In the directory >specified in the turbo config files in the INFORMIXDIR directory. Well, technically it still could be version 5.x of Informix (as I recall; the memory is always the first thing to go); the process was still named sqlturbo even though the product was named OnLine. Look in $INFORMIXDIR/bin; if you see tbstat, try running tbstat -V and see what you get. If you don't see tbstat >>I know I should ask this of our DBA, and I'm wondering if I should have >>even considered working under these conditions, but that's life and >>where I find myself now... > >No, you should quit your job and dig ditches instead. >> >>Of course I'm also asking why the hell our database doesn't support >>transaction when there will obviously be multiple users on the system! > >Transactions? Turbo supports transactions. Again, then like now it depends on logging status; you cannot support transactions if logging is turned off. Check that first. >>The thiings you are (or at least just me) are too scared to ask when >>you're new. > >Look at the manuals. You do have manuals, right? Once you have the version information, try looking on the Informix web site for doc. I don't know how far back they go, though; if you don't find it mayhaps somebody on list can sell/give you their old ones. Doubtful that anybody else is using this at the moment. Again, though, your best bet might be convincing the boss-types to switch to Linux. David

On Sat, 29 May 1999 11:47:37 -0700, "David Coburn" <dcoburn@worldvision.org> wrote: > >On Sat, 29 May 1999 at 09:29:12 gburnmore wrote: >>>On Sat, 29 May 1999 00:03:56 -0500, Danny Wright >><danwright@cmpmail.com> wrote: >> >>>I recently switched jobs and don't understand what version of Informix >>>I'm running.... >>> >>> >>>Out of habit I implemented a couple of scripts which I included "set >>>isolation to dirty read" (an unload and a count scipt) and I was >>>surprised to see these returned errors (apparently there is no support >>>for transactions the way it is set up). >> >>Turbo didn't understand dirty read. It does support commit/rollback >>and begin work. >Not so fast. Some did, if memory serves If so, I can't remember a version. > without the actual error message >you can't really tell. What was it? > >>>I also see sqlturbo's running, and notice that there is no >>>online????.log in the $INFORMIXDIR. This scares me.....I am used to >>>running Informix 7.24.UCsomething-or-other. >> >>SQL-Turbo is old. > >Yes, it is. Look though in $INFORMIXDIR/etc for *.log; the default was >sqlturbo.log but was usually renamed, just like now. > >>>We're running on SCO-UNIX (which is scary enough), and performance is >>>very bad (I write that off to the kind of machine we're running on, and >>>the fact that Informix version seems to be outdated), it almost seems >>>like we're running Standard Engine, instead of Online. >> >>No, Turbo was the predicessor to On-Line. Oh, and before you slam >>SCO, Informix runs better on it than it does on NT among others. We've >>no complaints from our customers running SCO. > >Still, SCO wasn't anything too great back then. Consider Linux and a newer >copy of Informix. Heh, still works fine with Online. Linux is fine for sites that don't have a problem with using it. There's still that "Linux Fear". > >>>I could be wrong, but I thought Standard Engine always used flat files >>>for DB storage >> >>Flat files? Yes, you're wrong. > >No, he's right, assuming that you include ISAM files that depend on the >file system. That's not a flat file. >Some of the data is binary (numerics, for example) but it >definitely does use file system type files, subject to all the problems >flat files have. He didn't say OS files, he said FLAT FILE and there's a difference. > The database he is running does NOT use flat files, >though, for obvious reasons. Indeed. > >>>I also though SE was so old, noone would even consider >>>it). >> >>Another incorrect statement. > >SE is still around and kicking. Still a pretty good engine. Yep. But now that Online is easier to maintain once set up properly, it's not as hard to sell a switch from SE to Online. >>>Anyway, unless SE has been upgraded to use raw disk space I think >>>we may be running it. Also where could the Informix logs be? >> >>No, you're running turbo. Sqlturbo gives it away. In the directory >>specified in the turbo config files in the INFORMIXDIR directory. > >Well, technically it still could be version 5.x of Informix (as I recall; >the memory is always the first thing to go); the process was still named >sqlturbo even though the product was named OnLine. Look in >$INFORMIXDIR/bin; if you see tbstat, try running tbstat -V and see what you >get. If you don't see tbstat > >>>I know I should ask this of our DBA, and I'm wondering if I should have >>>even considered working under these conditions, but that's life and >>>where I find myself now... >> >>No, you should quit your job and dig ditches instead. >>> >>>Of course I'm also asking why the hell our database doesn't support >>>transaction when there will obviously be multiple users on the system! >> >>Transactions? Turbo supports transactions. > >Again, then like now it depends on logging status; you cannot support >transactions if logging is turned off. Check that first. True. >>>The thiings you are (or at least just me) are too scared to ask when >>>you're new. >> >>Look at the manuals. You do have manuals, right? > >Once you have the version information, try looking on the Informix web site >for doc. I don't know how far back they go, though; if you don't find it >mayhaps somebody on list can sell/give you their old ones. Doubtful that >anybody else is using this at the moment. Unbelievably, I've still know two businesses running it on HP that aren't ready to switch. >Again, though, your best bet might be convincing the boss-types to switch >to Linux. He didn't mention the other Informix tools he's using. Perhaps the 4gl or RDS. Other issues are surely there as well. Linux isn't always the answer to every question.