Re: is possible multiple instances with the same dbspace?

EIther interpretation works. Guess it's up to the OP which of us he thinks 'got it'. Art Art S. Kagel Oninit (www.oninit.com) IIUG Board of Directors (art@iiug.org) Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Oninit, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly or implicitly. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio@serendipita.com>wrote: > Art Kagel wrote: > > If you are running IDS 11.50 you can set up Shared Disk Secondary > > Servers (SDSS) using the optional MACH11 feature available since 11.10. > > Under IDS 11.50 these servers can all be writable (they were read-only > > under 11.10). As long as your IO subsystems can provide a shared disk > > environment across these multiple servers MACH11 will let you do what > > you want to do. I would suggest having one HDR secondary with > > independent storage, just in case you lose the primary storage array, > > otherwise, you're good to go. > > I don't think that's what he's asking. Certainly not the way I read it. > The way I read it, is he's got 5 different instances that want to share > just the master data, not the rest of the information. SDS will only > allow them to share everything. > > -- > Cheers, > Obnoxio The Clown > > http://obotheclown.blogspot.com > I will now proceed to pleasure myself with this fish. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >

first of all i would like to thank. Real situation: five servers with its own database, and independent information. All replicating on a parent server. This parent server collects data from all servers, so its size is five times higher. Desired: single server (parent) with 5+1 instances.Each instance by storing the records for each branch in the single database. Parent server is new but the others are old and failing, so I am studying the possibility of having a single server without changing our application. The first option was to launch different instances with their own databases. But the size of this option is 5+1+1+1+1+1 = 10. This is the reason why I like to share the space of the database, with a final size of 5 instead of 10. The problem of interpretation has been that I have used technical terms as "root" or "dbspace" for an explanation that it wasn't. Sorry.

OK, so what do you want to do? You can combine everything into a single server instance, or two servers one master and one copy which can be a MACH11 HDR secondary or an ER participant with independent storage, or you can keep the current setup and have all six servers on the same system with the five replicating to the single master. You can even have a single server instance for storage and setup five SDS secondaries sharing the disks storage but having independent cache memory with different applications accessing different servers. Indeed, the new Connection Manager makes the routing of applications to multiple servers easy. However, if there are independent secondaries, they cannot share part of the disk storage of the primary. You can share all of the disk chunks using MACH11 SDS technology, but not part of the storage. However, I would note that you are losing the archival and safety nature of having independent machines by combining everything onto a single machine. You may want instead to get two machines. One to run the master and another running the other five server instances (or one) so that you have physical redundancy in case one of the physical machines fails. Art Art S. Kagel Oninit (www.oninit.com) IIUG Board of Directors (art@iiug.org) Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Oninit, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly or implicitly. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:46 AM, semex <siasemex2@gmail.com> wrote: > first of all i would like to thank. > > Real situation: five servers with its own database, and independent > information. All replicating on a parent server. This parent server > collects data from all servers, so its size is five times higher. > > Desired: single server (parent) with 5+1 instances.Each instance by > storing the records for each branch in the single database. > > Parent server is new but the others are old and failing, so I am > studying the possibility of having a single server without changing > our application. The first option was to launch different instances > with their own databases. But the size of this option is 5+1+1+1+1+1 = > 10. This is the reason why I like to share the space of the database, > with a final size of 5 instead of 10. > > The problem of interpretation has been that I have used technical > terms as "root" or "dbspace" for an explanation that it wasn't. Sorry. > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >