Re: Tablespace page limit

"Jacob Salomon" <spamntrapf@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:feednSo_r86zt3jXnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com... > Neil Truby wrote: > All that said: Is there sufficient green-grease - a monetary reason - for > IBM to extend themselves for this? How many customers really need it? > Had I seen this question in the survey, my response would have been "Nice > to have". (My biggest database ever was ~ 5TB; your experience may > differ.) We work with applications that have audit tables that grow like Topsy and do eventually hot the limit. You might argue that the customer or developer should be archiving this data but at present it isn't necessary. The *incremental* cost of 32g of even Tier One storage is not so very high and barely worth worrying about, so it is the IBM Informix limitation that is causing the customers to address the issue. And the addressing almost always involves intrusive downtime. So what would the financial justification be for IBM to increase the page limit? Just a defensive one I think: in my experience the sectors that continue to thrive are teleco and gaming, which demand exceptionally high levels of availability. In my customers even an hour's planned downtime is quite visible to senior management. Of course R&D resource is finite: my guess is that IBM is choosing to devote at least some of it into new, big-ticket, chargebale options like Compression. Time will tell I suppose whether there are sufficient large customers (and you'd have to be a large customer with deep pockets) to take up these options.

-->I never met this limit. But I remember several posts from you -->complaining about this, and you probably "get out" more than I, so I'm my 2 cents.... I hate to say this; these limits were hit at least a decade ago by a number of customers and yes one can do a lot in order not to hit this limit using fragmentation.(may be beneficial for performance too ....) and yes it is a whole lot of work to change it. Superboer. On 28 okt, 11:06, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > "Jacob Salomon" <spamntr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:feednSo_r86zt3jXnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink.com... > > > Neil Truby wrote: > > All that said:  Is there sufficient green-grease - a monetary reason - for > > IBM to extend themselves for this?  How many customers really need it? > > Had I seen this question in the survey, my response would have been "Nice > > to have".  (My biggest database ever was ~ 5TB; your experience may > > differ.) > > We work with applications that have audit tables that grow like Topsy and do > eventually hot the limit.  You might argue that the customer or developer > should be archiving this data but at present it isn't necessary.  The > *incremental* cost of 32g of even Tier One storage is not so very high and > barely worth worrying about, so it is the IBM Informix limitation that is > causing the customers to address the issue.  And the addressing almost > always involves intrusive downtime. > > So what would the financial justification be for IBM to increase the page > limit?  Just a defensive one I think: in my experience the sectors that > continue to thrive are teleco and gaming, which demand exceptionally high > levels of availability.  In my customers even an hour's planned downtime is > quite visible to senior management. > > Of course R&D resource is finite: my guess is that IBM is choosing to devote > at least some of it into new, big-ticket, chargebale options like > Compression.  Time will tell I suppose whether there are sufficient large > customers (and you'd have to be a large customer with deep pockets) to take > up these options.