Informix V7 IDS/Red Hat V6 Problems

Hi all, Thanks to all who helped with my last post. I wish the support we pay vendors for was half this good! Now that we have the IDS engine up and running on RedHat V6, we are recompiling and running well-debugged programs on this platform. ( We usually use AIX or SCO and SE). Our Linux box has: Engine: 7.3.UC7-2 SQL: 7.20.UD7 4GL RDS: 7.20.UD7 We run into the the following problems: (but we've only just begun) 1. ISQL gives me a syntax error when running a Create database, Create procedure .sql. These run fine on AIX and SE, they also run fine on Linux as long as I use dbaccess instead of isql. 2. We use 'Globals' in our 4GL programs. They work fine on AIX and SCO, but all the Global variables give an -1339 error on Linux. 3. Form file names can only be 10 Char long here 4. Forms using FORMONLY.var_name that work fine on AIX and SCO require (sometimes) us to put the variable type in the definition. My questions, (respectfully) are: 1. Is Informix IDS on RH ready for prime-time? This will be a production server, and our users are used to high availability, and good speed. 2. Is online worth the additional trouble? It required a good deal of additional setup, maintenance, and tuning. Backups of data seem more difficult to manage. (I'm not even certain I can restore just one database from a dbspace) I'm wondering if the additional expense of online wouldn't be better spent on faster hardware? Perhaps the primary problem here is that we have little experience with Linux, and with Informix Online. Would we be having these problems if our competence was in Linux/Online, instead of AIX/Sco/SE? Any comments and/or help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Craig

Craig Bellusci wrote: > [...snip...] > Now that we have the IDS engine up and running on RedHat V6, > we are recompiling and running well-debugged programs on this > platform. (We usually use AIX or SCO and SE). Our Linux box has: > > Engine: 7.3.UC7-2 > SQL: 7.20.UD7 > 4GL RDS: 7.20.UD7 > > We run into the the following problems: (but we've only just begun) > 1. ISQL gives me a syntax error when running a Create database, > Create procedure .sql. These run fine on AIX and SE; they also > run fine on Linux as long as I use dbaccess instead of isql. ISQL does not understand CREATE PROCEDURE statements which have any embedded semi-colons. It does not do so in any version. That will even include the forthcoming 7.30 version. On any platform. The CREATE DATABASE is different; that should work. I'd like to know more about what you are doing when you run into the error. > 2. We use 'Globals' in our 4GL programs. They work fine on AIX > and SCO, but all the Global variables give an -1339 error on > Linux. Off-hand, I don't recall -1339 as an error. > 3. Form file names can only be 10 Char long here That's normal. I'm not sure where they're allowed to be longer, but it is probably accidental. This limitation is historical, of course, and dates back to the days when most Unix file systems limited names to 14 characters total, and 4 characters were reserved for the .per and .frm extensions. Are you saying that you can use longer names on AIX and/or SCO? > 4. Forms using FORMONLY.var_name that work fine on AIX and SCO > require (sometimes) us to put the variable type in the > definition. Please give examples... > My questions, (respectfully) are: > 1. Is Informix IDS on RH ready for prime-time? This will be a > production server, and our users are used to high availability, > and good speed. None of these issues is relevant to IDS per se. You've asked about ISQL and I4GL. So, you've not presented anything to show that IDS is not ready for the prime time. It is going to be your call -- you will be justified in regarding my advice as biassed. > 2. Is online worth the additional trouble? It required a good deal > of additional setup, maintenance, and tuning. Backups of data > seem more difficult to manage. (I'm not even certain I can > restore just one database from a dbspace) I'm wondering if the > additional expense of online wouldn't be better spent on faster > hardware? You're comparing IDS and SE, I presume. I'd answer yes, but... Yes, OnLine requires more TLC (tender loving care) than SE. But it can give better performance as a result. You can also back it up while users are modifying the database and still have a coherent backup; that you cannot do with SE. With IDS/LES (Informix Dynamic Server Linux Edition Suite), you only get ontape for backups AFAIK. That means you cannot recover a single database, or even a single dbspace. If you are in the habit of trashing databases, then either learn how to avoid doing it or use multiple instances of OnLine or use SE. You should get more mileage out of using the hardware with OnLine than in adding to it to run more SE. > Perhaps the primary problem here is that we have little experience > with Linux, and with Informix Online. Would we be having these > problems if our competence was in Linux/Online, instead of AIX/Sco/SE? The majority of your problems are related to moving to OnLine, I think. I'm a little puzzled by the globals and formonly issues -- please send more details to me at my office address. -- Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com, jleffler@earthlink.net) Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.60 -- see http://www.perl.com/CPAN #include <disclaimer.h>

Craig Bellusci wrote: > > 1. Is Informix IDS on RH ready for prime-time? This will be a production > server, and our users are used to high availability, and good speed. > 2. Is online worth the additional trouble? It required a good deal of > additional setup, maintenance, and tuning. Backups of data seem more > difficult to manage. (I'm not even certain I can restore just one > database > from a dbspace) I'm wondering if the additional expense of online > wouldn't be better spent on faster hardware? NO. Compared with IDS on SCO, IDS/LE on RH is slower. No raw device, performance sucks. Compiling and running 4GL program against IDS/LE is much slower than IDS on SCO. 4GL on SCO work diffrently on RH. You get caught by quite a few suprises. eg. select item_no from itemfile where item_no >= "AA" item_no is defined as index. under SCO, items are returned in item_no sequence, but not under Linux. May be the 'LE' in IDS/LE stands for "lightweight edition"? In comparison, SE on RH outperformed IDS/LE, unless you need byte and text. Well, what can we expect for $99? Next version (full price edition) perhaps?

Hi Jonathan, Thanks for your response. I hope I'm not sounding testy. My questions are genuine. I am concerned about our organizations' reputation and my credibility as we attempt to transition to this Linux machine. (It was my idea to use IDS, and try Linux) It sounds as though some of these problems are artifacts from the 4.1 versions we use on AIX and SCO. They don't have as picky a compiler making certain we obey all the rules. I will send some code segments to you via your Informix e-mail address as you asked. I've responded in each section as appropriate. Craig > > We run into the the following problems: (but we've only just begun) > > 1. ISQL gives me a syntax error when running a Create database, > > Create procedure .sql. These run fine on AIX and SE; they also > > run fine on Linux as long as I use dbaccess instead of isql. > > ISQL does not understand CREATE PROCEDURE statements which have any > embedded semi-colons. It does not do so in any version. That will > even include the forthcoming 7.30 version. On any platform. I assumed that syntax between dbaccess and isql would be the same. I did not RTFM. > The CREATE DATABASE is different; that should work. I'd like to know > more about what you are doing when you run into the error. CREATE DATABASE does work. It was just the CREATE PROCEDUREstatement right afterward that died with a syntax error. > > 2. We use 'Globals' in our 4GL programs. They work fine on AIX > > and SCO, but all the Global variables give an -1339 error on > > Linux. > > Off-hand, I don't recall -1339 as an error. I'll e-mail you the code segment and a printout of the error to your Informix account as you requested. > > 3. Form file names can only be 10 Char long here > > That's normal. I'm not sure where they're allowed to be longer, but > it is probably accidental. This limitation is historical, of course, > and dates back to the days when most Unix file systems limited names > to 14 characters total, and 4 characters were reserved for the .per > and .frm extensions. Are you saying that you can use longer names > on AIX and/or SCO? Yes, our programs compile and run on AIX and SCO. > > 4. Forms using FORMONLY.var_name that work fine on AIX and SCO > > require (sometimes) us to put the variable type in the > > definition. I'll e-mail you the .per with the offending code. > > My questions, (respectfully) are: > > 1. Is Informix IDS on RH ready for prime-time? This will be a > > production server, and our users are used to high availability, > > and good speed. > > None of these issues is relevant to IDS per se. You've asked about > ISQL and I4GL. So, you've not presented anything to show that IDS > is not ready for the prime time. It is going to be your call -- you > will be justified in regarding my advice as biassed. > > > 2. Is online worth the additional trouble? It required a good deal > > of additional setup, maintenance, and tuning. Backups of data > > seem more difficult to manage. (I'm not even certain I can > > restore just one database from a dbspace) I'm wondering if the > > additional expense of online wouldn't be better spent on faster > > hardware? > > You're comparing IDS and SE, I presume. I'd answer yes, but... > Yes, OnLine requires more TLC (tender loving care) than SE. But it > can give better performance as a result. You can also back it up while > users are modifying the database and still have a coherent backup; that > you cannot do with SE. With IDS/LES (Informix Dynamic Server Linux > Edition Suite), you only get ontape for backups AFAIK. That means you > cannot recover a single database, or even a single dbspace. If you > are in the habit of trashing databases, then either learn how to avoid > doing it or use multiple instances of OnLine or use SE. You should > get more mileage out of using the hardware with OnLine than in adding > to it to run more SE. Yes, I was comparing IDS and SE. We can always use better performance. It just seems that the price is a little to high if we cannot restore individual databases. We run around 10 databases on a computer, 1 for each of 10 agencies, and 1 for the Health Care MCO. Sometimes an agency makes substantial changes to their billing setup, etc., then after trying it, want to abandon the results. Under SE, we simply restore the prior nights' backed up database from tape, and voila, they're good to go. IDS does not seem to have this much needed flexibility.

Hi Brian, Thanks for responding. It sounds like we would be better off with SE on Linux. I have gotten the impression from the manuals, and other responses to my post that there are some limitations to restoring data under IDS on Linux that would negatively impact our customers. I did understand you correctly, right? SE is faster than IDS on Linux? I did some quick, unscientific tests with sql queries between AIX/SE and the Linux IDS and was somewhat disapointed with the performance on the Linux box. The AIX box is a 133MHZ powerPC with 128MB RAM. Informix 5.01 SE The Linux box is a dual processor 450MHZ PIII with 1GB RAM and the latest IDS. The database was dbexported from the AIX box, and dbimported on the IDS with NO LOGGING. My tests were multi-table joins with sorts, groups, etc., as well as a couple of correlated sub-queries. The AIX box was generally just a little bit slower, and once a little faster. Not the big jump in performance I had expected. (BTW I didn't expect multi-processor performance, since this version of IDS doesn't seem to be multi-processor aware) Craig Brian Tan <brian@sys.com.sg> wrote in message news:3770E6D2.E7027ACA@sys.com.sg... > Craig Bellusci wrote: > > > > 1. Is Informix IDS on RH ready for prime-time? This will be a production > > server, and our users are used to high availability, and good speed. > > 2. Is online worth the additional trouble? It required a good deal of > > additional setup, maintenance, and tuning. Backups of data seem more > > difficult to manage. (I'm not even certain I can restore just one > > database > > from a dbspace) I'm wondering if the additional expense of online > > wouldn't be better spent on faster hardware? > > NO. Compared with IDS on SCO, IDS/LE on RH is slower. No raw device, > performance sucks. Compiling and running 4GL program against IDS/LE is > much slower than IDS on SCO. 4GL on SCO work diffrently on RH. You get > caught by quite a few suprises. > > eg. select item_no from itemfile where item_no >= "AA" > > item_no is defined as index. under SCO, items are returned in item_no > sequence, but not under Linux. > > May be the 'LE' in IDS/LE stands for "lightweight edition"? In > comparison, SE on RH outperformed IDS/LE, unless you need byte and text. > Well, what can we expect for $99? Next version (full price edition) > perhaps?