9.40 buggy!

Folks, We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical application. We can not execute our load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31. Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been pushing it. Performance is about the same with our application. Better off on 7.31.

And these problems are ????? We got 3 major sites live now, with another one coming on line soon, yes there has been some problems but they are all clear now. Rich Campbell wrote: > > Folks, > > We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical > application. We can not execute our > load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31. > Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been > pushing it. > Performance is about the same with our application. > > Better off on 7.31. -- Paul Watson # Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional Fax: +44 1436 678693 # Mob: +44 7818 003457 # www.oninit.com #

Rich Campbell wrote: > Folks, > > We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical > application. We can not execute our > load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31. > Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been > pushing it. > Performance is about the same with our application. > > Better off on 7.31. > > Either 7.31 or FUD? Oh well... I could report some success cases... It would be as useless as this post... I'd love to migrate the systems I work with for 9.40... A very juicy version... Regards.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:18:11 +0000, Fernando Nunes <spam@domus.online.pt> wrote: >Rich Campbell wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical >> application. We can not execute our >> load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31. >> Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been >> pushing it. >> Performance is about the same with our application. >> >> Better off on 7.31. >> >> > >Either 7.31 or FUD? >Oh well... I could report some success cases... >It would be as useless as this post... > >I'd love to migrate the systems I work with for 9.40... A very juicy version... > Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit.....

Found one bug on Linux: create table with extent size way over what was available on the disk crashed the engine. Corrected the problem andloaded 30 GB database OK. Michael Rich Campbell wrote: > Folks, > > We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical > application. We can not execute our > load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31. > Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been > pushing it. > Performance is about the same with our application. > > Better off on 7.31. > >

And your platform is... ? "Rich Campbell" <rich.campbell@att.com> a 'crit dans le message de news:bpg2fh$bs629@kcweb01.netnews.att.com... > Folks, > > We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical > application. We can not execute our > load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31. > Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been > pushing it. > Performance is about the same with our application. > > Better off on 7.31. > >

Rich Campbell opined: >Better off on 7.31. Unfortunately, the support on IDS 7.31 is ending. Although there is still some time, the length of our development cycle and the need to upgrade our customers is pushing us to migrate. Fernando Nunes questioned the value of the original post: >Either 7.31 or FUD? At the tech conference, I talked to as many people as I could find who have migrated. Given the almost universal loathing with which the victims described their experiences migrating to 9.3, I was surprised that almost every user liked moving to 9.4. Not that there were no bumps, unsurprising with it still on interim 2 (my experience suggests avioding even testing anything prior to UC2). Then drooled over two of my favourite features: > Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit..... Let's not forget the end of the B-tree cleaner, the removal of the 2 GB limit, truly long lvarchars, an end to the 2GB limit, new datatypes and built-in functions, and what was the other one? Oh, yeah. No more 2 GB limit. Sincerely, Christopher Coleman Database Analyst Pharmacy Division Mediware Information Systems, Inc.

Can anyone (apart from Jonathan Lefler!) please explain to me why the removal of the 2GByte chunk limit is so great? I agree that the limit is a pain in the arse for database administrators. But, apart from fewer chunks to keep a track of, what other step-changes does it usher into our lives? -- Neil Truby t:01932 724027 Director m:07798 811708 Ardenta Limited e:neil.truby@ardenta.com "Christopher" <christopher.coleman@mediware.com> wrote in message news:a727ee4f.0311200844.47da044e@posting.google.com... > Rich Campbell opined: > >Better off on 7.31. > > Unfortunately, the support on IDS 7.31 is ending. Although there is > still some time, the length of our development cycle and the need to > upgrade our customers is pushing us to migrate. > > Fernando Nunes questioned the value of the original post: > >Either 7.31 or FUD? > > At the tech conference, I talked to as many people as I could find who > have migrated. Given the almost universal loathing with which the > victims described their experiences migrating to 9.3, I was surprised > that almost every user liked moving to 9.4. Not that there were no > bumps, unsurprising with it still on interim 2 (my experience suggests > avioding even testing anything prior to UC2). > > Then drooled over two of my favourite features: > > Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit..... > > Let's not forget the end of the B-tree cleaner, the removal of the 2 > GB limit, truly long lvarchars, an end to the 2GB limit, new datatypes > and built-in functions, and what was the other one? Oh, yeah. No more > 2 GB limit. > > Sincerely, > > Christopher Coleman > > Database Analyst > Pharmacy Division > Mediware Information Systems, Inc.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:11:24 -0000, "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: >Can anyone (apart from Jonathan Lefler!) please explain to me why the >removal of the 2GByte chunk limit is so great? >I agree that the limit is a pain in the arse for database administrators. >But, apart from fewer chunks to keep a track of, what other step-changes >does it usher into our lives? Makes it easier for DBAs to get along better with SysAdmins . . . imagine a 250G instance . . . . that's 125 2G rawspaces.

Chris, Don't get me wrong, being a long time Informix user and supporter, the features in 9.40 are rich. But stability counts the MOST, and 9.40 is NOT stable yet. We have had three instance crashes when running a real production "load test". Support has yet to explain them. Support also says that 30 bugs are being fixed per week!! Features are nice, stability is paramount when supporting an application with 1000 users and 24 x 7 availability requirements for a business critical application. Tell me how I am wrong? Oh, and by the way end-of-life (support) for 7.31 and 9.40 happens to be the same date. mid-2006. Check it out. You will not uncover stability problems by just using the software in a dev/test environment with limited usage. What kind of application do you support? Rich "Christopher" <christopher.coleman@mediware.com> wrote in message news:a727ee4f.0311200844.47da044e@posting.google.com... > Rich Campbell opined: > >Better off on 7.31. > > Unfortunately, the support on IDS 7.31 is ending. Although there is > still some time, the length of our development cycle and the need to > upgrade our customers is pushing us to migrate. > > Fernando Nunes questioned the value of the original post: > >Either 7.31 or FUD? > > At the tech conference, I talked to as many people as I could find who > have migrated. Given the almost universal loathing with which the > victims described their experiences migrating to 9.3, I was surprised > that almost every user liked moving to 9.4. Not that there were no > bumps, unsurprising with it still on interim 2 (my experience suggests > avioding even testing anything prior to UC2). > > Then drooled over two of my favourite features: > > Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit..... > > Let's not forget the end of the B-tree cleaner, the removal of the 2 > GB limit, truly long lvarchars, an end to the 2GB limit, new datatypes > and built-in functions, and what was the other one? Oh, yeah. No more > 2 GB limit. > > Sincerely, > > Christopher Coleman > > Database Analyst > Pharmacy Division > Mediware Information Systems, Inc.

Neil Truby wrote: > Can anyone (apart from Jonathan Lefler!) please explain to me why the > removal of the 2GByte chunk limit is so great? > I agree that the limit is a pain in the arse for database administrators. > But, apart from fewer chunks to keep a track of, what other step-changes > does it usher into our lives? The ability to address much bigger databases and not to have to install an LVM on those primitive OSes that don't come with one. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Rich Campbell wrote: > You will not uncover stability problems by just using the software in a > dev/test environment with limited usage. > > What kind of application do you support? Oh dear. I sense the arrival of a man armed only with a knife at a gunfight. :o) -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Rich Campbell observed: > But stability counts the MOST I would agree with you except for profitability. We resell IDS as part of our app, and we cannot sell supported licenses after IBM stops selling licenses. > and 9.40 is NOT stable yet. That remains to be proven. I am not arguing, Rich, but I have productions systems that crash on 7.31 with no explanation, too. My point about interim releases was that I have seldom seen any release prior to UC3 which was truly ready for production. The first commercial release is for finding the bugs that slipped past the beta testers, the second is for patching the show-stopper bugs that prevented further testing, and only the third is really ready for prime time. This has been my experience with Informix. When 7.31.UC1 came out, we referred to it as the Holy Grail release. Within days of general availability, support was warning people of security holes and they needed to wait for 7.31.UC2. Oddly enough, releases 7.31.UD1 all the way through 7.31.UD3 had significant bugs that made me wonder how they had gotten past QA. 7.31.UD4, on which our customers currently reside, has bugs that are not fixed until UD7, and UD5 has one that is a show stopper for us (though it might not be for everyone). > Support also says that 30 bugs are being fixed per week!! How does that compare to 7.31? If there are fewer, is that because the bugs are only being fixed in the 9 family? > Features are nice, stability is paramount... I will not disagree that stability is more important than features. That does not keep me from wanting the features. In the perfect world, features and stability would come automatically. > Oh, and by the way end-of-life (support) for 7.31 and 9.40 happens to be the > same date... But support contracts will not be sold after April 2005. That is my deadline. > What kind of application do you support? We resell a database which is 24*7, mixed OLTP/DSS functionality, 300 installations. Average number of users per installation expected to increase by factor of ten in the next two years. Meanwhile, the Clown obnoxioed: > Oh dear. I sense the arrival of a man armed only with a knife at a gunfight. Now, now, I have never shot a man for abbreviating my name unnecessarily. Rich and I may have a difference of opinion, but he need not be strung up for reporting on a negative experience. Besides, at this point, I want to hear about problems people are experiencing with We are not blindly supportive of IBM and the Informix product line around here. Are we? As for Neil's question: "Can anyone (apart from Jonathan Lefler!) please explain to me why the removal of the 2GByte chunk limit is so great?" First, there is the geek part of me that has just wanted to see this limit go away for a long time. Second, all the utilities which fail when their output files exceed 2GB make my life miserable. The larger databases are nice, theoretically, by my databases are not close to exceeding the max available in 7.31, yet. But the final reason, for me, is the most important: I am sick and tired of explaining why my customers have to break their huge drives into small pieces, and then having to argue (politely, of course) with their IS departments. It is an administration headache, especially on Solaris where you can only get 8 slices per drive without an expensive LVM, and the IS departments always complain. Sincerely, Christopher Coleman Database Analyst Pharmacy Division Mediware Information Systems, Inc.