RE: DBspaces and detached indexes

On Solaris 8 (both servers must be on the same OS and IDS versions) Disksuite is NOT limited on the number of disk partitions you can have. The dbspace layout must be identical - i assume you will be using links to the real raw devices. All you need is sufficient total disk configured. You could put IDS v9 on both! MW > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org > [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org]On Behalf Of 5 cats > Sent: Friday, 23 May 2003 3:52 a.m. > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: DBspaces and detached indexes > > > Well I've sorted through oncheck -pt and got the number of pages out, > and fed them into Excel - what a useful program that is! > > Anyway, I have wound up wondering if for the few large dynamic tables > that will again have their own Dbspaces (the data will be on a > round-robin basis) if each index should have it's own dbspace, or if > it won't make a lot of different to put a couple in a dbspace > togeather. The OS will be Solaris 8, the IDS 7.3x, and the table with > the most rows in question has nearly 23,000,000 rows currently, plus 4 > indexes. Three are on a single column, the 4th is on 3 columns. > > There is lots of space to go at on the new machine, not to mention > masses of RAM, but there is a constraint that I have to create a > schema that can also be implemented (once the mirrors have been > broken) on the old machine so we can use archive tapes to get a copy > of the live DB on it. However I plan to do my disk layout first and > then check to see if it can be created on the old machine and adjust > if necessary - hopefully it won't be, except that I will have to use > maximum size slices to 2 GB (remember we will still be using v7, not > the later v9 where this is no longer the case) and offsets as the old > machine doesn't have Veritas so is limited as to how many slices can > be created on each disk. > > Hopefully the gurus here will have something useful to say....

"Murray Wood" <murray@quanta.co.nz> wrote in message news:<bajp2c$fdl$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>... > On Solaris 8 (both servers must be on the same OS and IDS versions) We will be aiming for that following some complicated calls to Partner Assist to get the upgrades and split the licences. > Disksuite is NOT limited on the number of disk partitions you can have. The chaps ordering the new platform should have known this..... > The > dbspace layout must be identical - i assume you will be using links to the > real raw devices. Naturellment - for one thing it would drive us nuts typing in the very long names that Solaris knows the slices by, for another the machines have quite different disk controller and disk configurations. > All you need is sufficient total disk configured. Yes, we will have. The limitation is the old machine having somewhat less disk than the new one - but such is the way of life! Useful information, thanks, but it doesn't quite answer the question I asked - do you consider it preferable for each index to have it's own dbspace or would you be happy with a couple of indexes sharing one? > > You could put IDS v9 on both! We *could* but we haven't tried our software with it! > > MW > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org > > [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org]On Behalf Of 5 cats > > Sent: Friday, 23 May 2003 3:52 a.m. > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Subject: DBspaces and detached indexes > > > > > > Well I've sorted through oncheck -pt and got the number of pages out, > > and fed them into Excel - what a useful program that is! > > > > Anyway, I have wound up wondering if for the few large dynamic tables > > that will again have their own Dbspaces (the data will be on a > > round-robin basis) if each index should have it's own dbspace, or if > > it won't make a lot of different to put a couple in a dbspace > > togeather. The OS will be Solaris 8, the IDS 7.3x, and the table with > > the most rows in question has nearly 23,000,000 rows currently, plus 4 > > indexes. Three are on a single column, the 4th is on 3 columns. This above is the crucial bit! > > > > There is lots of space to go at on the new machine, not to mention > > masses of RAM, but there is a constraint that I have to create a > > schema that can also be implemented (once the mirrors have been > > broken) on the old machine so we can use archive tapes to get a copy > > of the live DB on it. However I plan to do my disk layout first and > > then check to see if it can be created on the old machine and adjust > > if necessary - hopefully it won't be, except that I will have to use > > maximum size slices to 2 GB (remember we will still be using v7, not > > the later v9 where this is no longer the case) and offsets as the old > > machine doesn't have Veritas so is limited as to how many slices can > > be created on each disk. This paragraph possibly muddied the waters.... > > > > Hopefully the gurus here will have something useful to say.... Still hoping.... ;-)