Re: Informix won't work with NFS?

In <1993Oct29.044131.14073@osh3.OSHA.GOV> chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Charles Yamasaki) writes: >In <1993Oct28.190317.16409@pyra.co.uk> graeme@pyra.co.uk (Graeme Sargent) writes: >>In <CFB92M.LE5@sparc0a.cs.uiuc.edu> cgregory@ziggy.cs.uiuc.edu (Christine Gregory) writes: >>>No, we're not trying to do anything fancy. >>>It's just the workstation that runs informix is NOT the fileserver. >>>Is that so unusual? >>Yes, I suspect that is pretty unusual, sine Informix doesn't support >>that scenario. >Well, not so mmuch so. I'd love to be able to do something similar. If >I pay for a 16 user license why does it matter what machine they are on? It doesn't matter a darn. As long as you telnet or rlogin to the server or use Informix-NET. The issue is that you shouldn't/can't use NFS. >>It seems to me that it is not unreasonable for a database vendor to >>require the database to be local to the database server processes, as >>there are significant performance implications for any other scenario >>which could impact their product's reputation. >Well, that's not a good excuse. If someone complained about performance >Informix could just say "what's the environment?" and follow up with >"well no wonder". And bang goes the (performance) reputation! >>Also, it is not totally outrageous for a database vendor to expect >>incremental license revenue for the extra capacity, throughput and >>flexibility that can be achieved in a networked environment. >Wait a second! You just implied in your last statement that throughput >would go down. Make up your mind! Besides, I have heard that Informix With NFS, yes. With Client/Server it would go up. >has learned that users are tired of paying software vendors for "extra >throughput, capacity, and flexibility" that is achieved through hardware >the customer has already paid for once. I understand they are charging >based on users, not on system capacity. True, but a different issue altogether. >This has been frustrating me for some time. I run a couple of SCO MPX >based systems. We got multiple processors to keep response times up and >to be able to have one machine be an async server, mail server, news >server, print server, etc without degradation. Now I don't mind paying >for the extra processors, disks, and memory. I don't even mind paying >SCO for MPX to make use of the extra processors. So I don't see why you would have an issue with configuring a database server! >Please tell me what business it is of Informix's if I get >multiprocessing to get 1 sec response times instead of doing without it >and getting 4 sec response times! This is the most silly thing I've None at all. They encourage you to use multi-processing (as in client/server), another argument against NFS. >ever heard! In fact, according to your logic, Informix should give me a >discount for a multiprocessor system because this has "significant >performance implications . . . which could impact their product's >reputation." If this "impact of their reputation" means so much why >shouldn't I profit for improving it. They do give you a discount. The cost per seat goes down as the number of users goes up. >Gawd! By that school of thought they should refuse to sell Informix >database software to anyone running Unix on a 386/20 or less. Maybe I think they currently draw the line circa PC/AT, not 386/20. >they should ask about disk and controller performance on your system >before allowing you to but it. Hey! Here's a thought! Make people >send in an "application for purchase" with a "system resume". Then only >the people with the most qualified will be priviledged with a license. >That would sure keep the tiny little reputation clean, huh? The objective is NOT to keep the reputation tiny, however. Your logic is seriously flawed. >Gosh, I got a little sarcastic there, huh? Sorry. Oh, is that what it was. >>>So, upon trying to access a database in his home directory, a user gets: >>> 923: INFORMIX is licensed for local database access only. [ stuff deleted ] >>>I find it hard to believe that informix was meant to run on completely >>>stand-alone machines -- as this one seems to act... >>No it is merely expecting you to use a client-server approach to >>networked computing, as is the (database) industry norm. >Wait, I haven't researched this so I'm not speaking from experience, but >I'd bet there are many database packages that will let you work from a >server without using a "client/server" paradigm (that's database >client/server, not filesystem client/server). Probably true. I would still disagree that the latter should be considered industry norm. I still feel that Informix are justified in requiring you to become local to the database or use client/server. graeme -- Disclaimer: The author's opinions are his own, and not necessarily those of Pyramid Technology Ltd. or Pyramid Technology Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -m------- Graeme Sargent Voice: +44 (0)252 373035 ---mmm----- Senior Database Consultant Fax : +44 (0)252 373135 -----mmmmm--- Pyramid Technology Ltd. Telex: Tell who??? -------mmmmmmm- Farnborough, Hants GU14 7PL Email: graeme@pyra.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the technology. The tricky bit is learning how to use it.