Re: Should I wait for IDS 11?

Fernando Nunes wrote: > david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >> [...snip...] >> Also I'm having ISM issues and have been told ISM will be going away >> soon, nice to know that the only way ot backup informix servers in >> parallel >> will soon be a chargable item whereas DB2 has the ability to do >> parallel backups included in the product. >> >> Anyone from IBM want to comment on yet another way DB2 is being >> treated better than Informix? > [...snip...] > On the more serious side, if someone told you that ISM will go away, > than you should ask why and when... Maybe it's good news and not bad... ISM won't go away until there is an alternative available - one that should be easier for you to use and us to maintain, that has been around for a couple of releases, and that has proven reliable. These criteria mean that ISM will be around for a good few years yet. OTOH, you might want to look at other storage managers - or wait until after you've seen the replacement and then decide whether to look for an alternative to the storage manager provided with IDS. ON-Tape in Cheetah has some nice stuff in it, too. -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0226 -- http://dbi.perl.org/

On 12 Jun, 05:12, Jonathan Leffler <jleff...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Fernando Nunes wrote: > > d...@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > >> [...snip...] > >> Also I'm having ISM issues and have been told ISM will be going away > >> soon, nice to know that the only way ot backup informix servers in > >> parallel > >> will soon be a chargable item whereas DB2 has the ability to do > >> parallel backups included in the product. > > >> Anyone from IBM want to comment on yet another way DB2 is being > >> treated better than Informix? > > [...snip...] > > On the more serious side, if someone told you that ISM will go away, > > than you should ask why and when... Maybe it's good news and not bad... > > ISM won't go away until there is an alternative available - one that > should be easier for you to use and us to maintain, that has been around > for a couple of releases, and that has proven reliable. These criteria > mean that ISM will be around for a good few years yet. OTOH, you might > want to look at other storage managers - or wait until after you've seen > the replacement and then decide whether to look for an alternative to > the storage manager provided with IDS. ON-Tape in Cheetah has some nice > stuff in it, too. > > -- > Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> > Email: jleff...@earthlink.net, jleff...@us.ibm.com > Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0226 --http://dbi.perl.org/ All I really need is a version of ontape that can backup dbspace in parallel. Sybase can use multiple stripes. I believe DB2 can backup in parallel Why can't Informix without the complexity of a Storage Manager? ontape's advantage is that it backsup the whole instance in one go without having to list tablespace (Oracle) or databases (Sybase) where these lists can get out of date. [ Either yes I know we added a new database to your Sybase server but we forgot to amend the list of backup job or each customer has to create their own script to discover the list of databases and back them up]. Parallel ontape where you specify N files and it backsup in parallel to all N (parallelism internal at dbspace level if needed. As mentioned in the great book "Unix Backup and Recovery" better if with M reader x N writers (you know the famous xchg stuff used by parallel everything queries) but I'll settle for backups running in parallel at the dbspace level. FYI, using ISM to mount 3 volume on 3 disk devices with plenty of space results in each volume reporting full after a while. WTF? How can it be full when all 3 devices are links to a directories on a network share that has 600GB free? David.

[snip] > > All I really need is a version of ontape that can backup dbspace in > parallel. > > Sybase can use multiple stripes. > I believe DB2 can backup in parallel > > Why can't Informix without the complexity of a Storage Manager? > what, are you asking for onarchive?! that archives in parallel without the complexity of a storage manager - although it might be adding complexity of its own ;-)) -- Ciao, Marco ______________________________________________________________________________ Marco Greco /UK /IBM Standard disclaimers apply! Structured Query Scripting Language http://www.4glworks.com/sqsl.htm 4glworks http://www.4glworks.com Informix on Linux http://www.4glworks.com/ifmxlinux.htm

Hi, maybe you want to look into external backup (and restore). This can easily be done to a file system and you can add as much parallelism as you want (or are capable of). If you do it right, you can accomplish the critical part of the external backup in less than a minute even for some terrabytes of data (e.g. by splitting a mirror). After this you can let the database users continue with their work while the actual backup to tape, files or whatever destination is done ... > Why can't Informix without the complexity of a Storage Manager? ontape can do backup to files, but also (if not chiefly) it is intended as a tool to backup to tape. And for doing backup to tapes in parallel, a storage manager (SM) is enormously helpful. BTW: as already mentioned by someone, onarchive was an attempt to do parallel backup without an SM. It became so complex to use that in the end people didn't use it anymore. TIA, Martin -- Martin Fuerderer IBM Informix Development Munich, Germany Information Management IBM Deutschland GmbH Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Hans Ulrich Märki Board of Management: Martin Jetter (Chairman), Rudolf Bauer, Christian Diedrich, Christoph Grandpierre, Matthias Hartmann, Thomas Fell, Michael Diemer Corporate Seat: Stuttgart, Germany; Reg.-Gericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB-Nr.: 14 562 WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 99369940 informix-list-bounces@iiug.org wrote on 12.06.2007 23:16:18: > On 12 Jun, 05:12, Jonathan Leffler <jleff...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Fernando Nunes wrote: > > > d...@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > > >> [...snip...] > > >> Also I'm having ISM issues and have been told ISM will be going away > > >> soon, nice to know that the only way ot backup informix servers in > > >> parallel > > >> will soon be a chargable item whereas DB2 has the ability to do > > >> parallel backups included in the product. > > > > >> Anyone from IBM want to comment on yet another way DB2 is being > > >> treated better than Informix? > > > [...snip...] > > > On the more serious side, if someone told you that ISM will go away, > > > than you should ask why and when... Maybe it's good news and not bad... > > > > ISM won't go away until there is an alternative available - one that > > should be easier for you to use and us to maintain, that has been around > > for a couple of releases, and that has proven reliable. These criteria > > mean that ISM will be around for a good few years yet. OTOH, you might > > want to look at other storage managers - or wait until after you've seen > > the replacement and then decide whether to look for an alternative to > > the storage manager provided with IDS. ON-Tape in Cheetah has some nice > > stuff in it, too. > > > > -- > > Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> > > Email: jleff...@earthlink.net, jleff...@us.ibm.com > > Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0226 --http://dbi.perl.org/ > > All I really need is a version of ontape that can backup dbspace in > parallel. > > Sybase can use multiple stripes. > I believe DB2 can backup in parallel > > Why can't Informix without the complexity of a Storage Manager? > > ontape's advantage is that it backsup the whole instance in one go > without having to list tablespace (Oracle) or databases (Sybase) > where these lists can get out of date. > > [ Either yes I know we added a new database to your Sybase server but > we forgot to amend the list of backup job or > each customer has to create their own script to discover the list > of databases and back them up]. > > Parallel ontape where you specify N files and it backsup in parallel > to all N (parallelism internal at dbspace level if needed. > > As mentioned in the great book "Unix Backup and Recovery" better if > with M reader x N writers (you know the famous xchg stuff used > by parallel everything queries) but I'll settle for backups running > in parallel at the dbspace level. > > FYI, using ISM to mount 3 volume on 3 disk devices with plenty of > space results in each volume reporting full after a while. > > WTF? How can it be full when all 3 devices are links to a directories > on a network share that has 600GB free? > > David. > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list