Installing 2 different 4gl versions

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C050B4.4DF82FA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a question. We are using 4GL RDS 7.30 HC4 at the moment. Can I install 4GL 7.30 FC4 with it ? I don't know if the 2 installations will affect each other and if 4GL RDS will still work after the installation. The reason why I want to load 4GL is that I can compile down to c-code which is alot faster and should use less system resources. I really want to compare the 2. Dirk Moolman Database Administrator Reach Technologies "Bravery is the capacity to perform properly even when scared half to death." - General Omar Bradley ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C050B4.4DF82FA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D247212714-17112000>I have = a=20 question.&nbsp; We are using 4GL RDS&nbsp; 7.30 HC4&nbsp; at the=20 moment.&nbsp;&nbsp; Can I install 4GL 7.30 FC4 with it ?&nbsp; I don't = know if=20 the 2 installations will affect each other and if&nbsp; 4GL RDS will = still work=20 after the installation.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D247212714-17112000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D247212714-17112000>The = reason why I=20 want to load 4GL is that I can compile down to c-code which is alot = faster and=20 should use less system resources.&nbsp; I really want to compare the=20 2.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D247212714-17112000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR><BR> <P><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Dirk Moolman</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Database Administrator</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Reach Technologies</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>"Bravery is the capacity to = perform=20 properly even when scared half to death."</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Comic = Sans MS"=20 size=3D2>- General Omar Bradley</FONT> </P> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C050B4.4DF82FA0--

Dirk Moolman wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Don't post MIME! > I have a question. We are using 4GL RDS 7.30 HC4 at the moment. Can I > install 4GL 7.30 FC4 with it ? I don't know if the 2 installations will > affect each other and if 4GL RDS will still work after the installation. > > The reason why I want to load 4GL is that I can compile down to c-code which > is alot faster and should use less system resources. I really want to > compare the 2. Use two different INFORMIXDIRs, probably with the same sqlhosts file both pointing to a database server instance running out of yet another INFORMIXDIR. Trying to put both versions of I4GL in the same directory will mean that you have just the version you installed later. You can leave the 7.30.HC4 stuff where it is if you also have the database server (IDS 7.31 or thereabouts) in the same directory; just install the FC4 code in a new location. -- Yours, Jonathan Leffler (Jonathan.Leffler@Informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> Guardian of DBD::Informix v1.00.PC1 -- http://www.perl.com/CPAN "I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it!"

You can quite easily load both software products simultaneously - we've been doing it for years. Ideally, you should install EXACTLY the same point release of the two compilers, and you can specifically ask Informix for the same point release. Hmmm - you are talking about RDS Hc4 and 4GL Fc4 - the H means 32 bit on 64 bit O/S, and the F means 64 bit on 64 bit, doesn't it? So actually, they are basically the same versions, but I can perhaps see your point on the fears of overlaying the two. But then, you will still get 100% significant results from your testing if you pick 7.30.HC4 so I strongly recommend you attempt to get hold of that and then you will have no problem over-installing the two. Our experience: startup times of the executables come right down (on old SCO boxes (dare I say it) from 5 years ago) load times for RDS could be several seconds, and the 4GL would be fractional of a second. This is far less of an issue with today's much faster processors - Intel, HP - you name it. Since most activity in the 4GL is either taking place in the engine or is dumb activity on decimals and strings, you would find that the speed difference is LESS than you imagine. If you study the generated C code you will see that it makes endless calls to functions to do all the work, so it's not a whole lot better than PCODE for execution speed. The real difference is the ability to share the executable code space of the C compiled programs. RDS PCODE does NOT share the memory image of the executable. Dynamic 4GL (otherwise known as FourJays) does using memory mapped files, although we've found scaling issues with Dynamic 4GL in large sites. The memory usage on the machine will come down if you get 50 users using C compiled instead of PCODE. It will give you bugger-all benefit for programs with only one or two occasional users. If you get really busy and implement a lot of shared libraries for your own code, then you can further squeeze down the amount of executable code space in use; if your extensive (?) 4GL libraries are shared then it reduces the size of the distinct code in each different executable. I wouldn't bother C compiling ALL 4gl programs in your system - just the busiest in terms of users. Have fun. Dirk Moolman wrote in message <8v3g9j$1eq$1@news.xmission.com>... > >I have a question. We are using 4GL RDS 7.30 HC4 at the moment. Can I >install 4GL 7.30 FC4 with it ? I don't know if the 2 installations will >affect each other and if 4GL RDS will still work after the installation. > >The reason why I want to load 4GL is that I can compile down to c-code which >is alot faster and should use less system resources. I really want to >compare the 2.