Re: Suggestions for improving the 7.x OnLine Engine installation and configuration

Nils Myklebust wrote: > > First: Be a *little* carefull because the issues here aren't > necessarily the biggest of issues. Still it is interesting. > By who's standards, yours? When's the last time you installed OnLine 7.x? And what if you had to do it on a regular basis? It's OK to have a complicated product, but that does not mean the product is acceptable just because it's complicated. I don't measure the quality of a product by how complicated it is. That would be really crazy if we did that for other products. > Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@mindspring.com> wrote: :HELLO! And what of this TEN business? ( tools - engine - network ) > > This TEN bussiness stinks. With a new version of allmost anything we > have to reinstall everything. It is indeed one of the most bizarre schemes I've seen. I can accept this happening for one release: "Oops we need for you to do this on this release but it won't happen again. We realize what a stupid idea it is!" . You'll never hear this one from Informix. > What it should have been of course is a simple copy of the current > informix directory tree to a new one (using tar or whatever), and > install any product on top of that. The risk of doing anything wrong > would deminish, and we wouldn't have to install again the old software > that we didn't upgrade this time. Amen. > There may be a problem of course in that Informix must make sure that > needed existing files aren't overwritten, but that's realy minor. > Not exactly rocket science is it? :-) > > :4. If the configuration and installation are <unacceptable> then why > : does Informix continue to offer products that are not substantially > : improved over the last release? Why hasn't the directory structure > : changed to show improvement? Did we put any thought into the idea > : that log-files shouldn't go into the software distribution directory? > : C'mon folks, this is not only sloppy, it's just L A Z Y. > > Well... strenght of words may make you loose an argument. > Not sure I understand what you mean... > :5. Where does the line begin between installation technician and > : dba? Don't get so smug that you can configure the living daylights > : out of the 7.x product, and are now an elitist because you chased > : down more "secrets" of the product than the next guy. It doesn't > : make you a better DBA to be a configuration expert--you're a better > : configuration expert but totally distracted from the core responsibility > : of dba. > > Here I would easily be tempted into using *far* stronger words. (I > just did.) It's the same problem so many Unix administrators have all > the time ... food for some thought. > Even considdering the dba work with core responsibilities one should > pause at this thought. > Hmmmmm.... > :> The tool should also check DNS, NIS or whatever the alternate systems > :> are named to see that communications work and most importantly suggest > :> exactly what to do. > :> > : > :You're pushing it now. > > Why? If there are too many combinations than at least they should > start combining. > I was kidding! > :> If Informix insist on continuing to supply I-Connect with it's cryptic > :> setup similar utilities should be included with it. Other tools (you > :> may know which) hardly need this. > :> > : > :Yes, a hammer. After I get done hitting myself on the thumb 20 times > :I feel much better. The pain is numbing, but it distracts me enough > :from these other silly ideas I have. :-) > > *The* important part here where the three first words "If Informix > insist". The key is they shouldn't. This and some other connectivity > software realy have to be rewritten from the ground up. They should > talk to that other company (I have mentioned their name a few too many > times by now) to have that done. It's actually quite hard to do right. > If it isn't done right soon Informix will find themselves in big > trouble without knowing what hit them. This is an area where the > current situation is totaly unacceptable. Connectivity at virtually > all levels simply have to bee so simple that *anyone* can install it. > Simpy think of the numbe of installations (of end user seets) that are > going to be made. Then think of where they are going to be made > (remote locations, often one at a time). Anybody dare say again that > it doesn't *have* to become dead simple? > There are plenty of software packages, GUIs, which have sophisticated configuration interfaces that allow competent installation and tuning. Informix knows they need to address this. Maybe if they would use New Era to develop some of the interface I'd become a believer. :-) > :Don't get me wrong. ONCONFIG is not really difficult to configure if > :you know what you're doing. > > Why did you suddenly start to require knowledge. You said something > else above. OK, what I'm saying is that with a 'little' wisdom, ONCONFIG is not too unacceptable in its' present form. It's a little rough around the edges, and barely acceptable. It needs a better interface,and the core concept of what to do with it is good enough and simple enough. But it <CAN> be improved. Why say it's good enough when simple reason shows it could be EASILY improved. > Don't get me wrong. I am all for knowledge, and there is surely no way > arround that. But there is a significant problem if you start counting > numbers. How many engines will be installed, and how many people are > awaylable to do those installs. Remember we are also talking about the > Workgroup Server products. With the prices coming down it will be > installed in every mom and pop shop. > Absolutely. The idea of setting up multiple servers is exactly what I'm inferring. Most companies have more than one system, and more than one disk drive. :-) Seriously the install and ongoing configuration and tuning should be EASY. I know of one site here in Orlando that uses a GUI to system administer hundreds of UNIX servers. ... > Even the idea of doing that I dislike profoundly. We should be *long* > past editing configuration files as a matter of standard installs and > tuning. > Obviously they should still be there, editable and all, but we need > better tools to the extent that we will have to do any tuning at all. > Remember there are too many of us that doesn't do this even once a > month. (I try to leave it to once a year!) > Yet another reason to make it easy. As a matter of humanness we do what we can to improve our lot in life. Making a better installation is a natural progression from the mess we see today. > :I think Informix has some sick glee in letting > :people manage their engines this way. ( Sorry but onstat is not the > :only way to know things. It's cool and it's UNIX command line joy, > :but really. :-) > > Cool??? Joy???? Unix command line??? all in once sentence? > Greate. I don't know the appropriate emoticon for that one. Your :-) > seems weak indeed. :-) > It was humor... nevermind...