Oninit cdi / Archive
Talk to an expert →

Re: If You have an option to move from 7.3 to 9.3 or 9.4. Which one you

Posted in 2003

Topics: Performance & Tuning, Storage & Space Management, Security, Permissions & Auditing, Platform-Specific Issues

Neil Truby — — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

"Rajib Sarkar" <rsarkar@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:bjlabp$sdv$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > 9.4 .. since > a) 2 GB chunk limits are gone ... > b) 2GB disk offsets can be used to create chunks .. > c) its performance is compatible with 7.31 code line > d) its the latest software ..:-) To play Devil's Advocate ... I met one of the IBM execs tasked with promoting Informix recently (yes, really, there are some!) who couldn't name a single site that has gone live with it. Our clients are generally quite risk-adverse, and from a risk management perspective, I'd let other people find and problems with it first .... Also, I really can't see the compelling sway of the >2GByte chunks argument. It's great that this has been addressed, but really, it's quite a minor admin overhead that's been removed (except on Solaris, I grant you). Rajib's saved his best argument to the penultimate: most (but not all - care to comment, Hal?) people have found performance improvements over other v9 engines.

↪ replying to Neil Truby
Obnoxio The Clown — — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

Neil Truby wrote: > "Rajib Sarkar" <rsarkar@us.ibm.com> wrote in message > news:bjlabp$sdv$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > >> 9.4 .. since >> a) 2 GB chunk limits are gone ... >> b) 2GB disk offsets can be used to create chunks .. >> c) its performance is compatible with 7.31 code line >> d) its the latest software ..:-) e) New B-Tree cleaning mechanism f) Better handling of extensibility in replication g) Mix HDR and ER seamlessly ... > To play Devil's Advocate ... I met one of the IBM execs tasked with > promoting Informix recently (yes, really, there are some!) who couldn't > name a single site that has gone live with it. Our clients are generally > quite risk-adverse, and from a risk management perspective, I'd let other > people find and problems with it first .... > > Also, I really can't see the compelling sway of the >2GByte chunks > argument. It's great that this has been addressed, but really, it's quite > a minor admin overhead that's been removed (except on Solaris, I grant > you). > > Rajib's saved his best argument to the penultimate: most (but not all - > care to comment, Hal?) people have found performance improvements over > other v9 engines.

Glossary