Re: A question for great Informix minds.....

> > Hello, everyone, > > Hi there:) > > I'm _not_ a "great Informix mind" -but won't be stopped by that... I agree. (For myself, that is. No offense intended.) > > (A also have conciderably less experience with Informix than other > posters in this group;) > > > Would anyone out there like to share their thoughts on the best way to > > lay out dbspaces? We have several databases, ranging from 50 mg to > > 200 gig in size, that we're migrating to a new platform. Our new > > platform is a Sun E4500 with 8-400hz processors and 1.5 gig of RAM. We > > have an A-1000 disk array with 18 gig drives (10,000 r.p.m.), and a > > single controller. The storage array is set up with a hardware level > > RAID-5 configuration. We're using Veritas to manage storage. The new > > platform will be running IDS 9.2 with Solaris 2.7. > > RAID-5, RAID-5? (Someone else shall rant about this) rant, rant, rant. Bad thing. > > If you can afford it, RAID-10 and more controllers might be worth > the the extra dimes... Absolutely. > One controller, 18GB drives and RAID-5 sounds slow;) How many drives? You said that you were going to be holding several large tables. At least on at 200 GB, devided by 18 GB per disk equals out to around 10-12 disks. On one controller? You'll most likely have some serious controller contention problems. > > > We're trying to decide how many dbspaces we should allocate. Should we > > allocate at least one dbspace for each database, regardless of the > > size? > > Probably not, depends on data and usage... Agreed. > > > Should we allocate one dbspace to dump all of the little > > databases into? > > Probably not, depends on data and usage... Agreed again. Assuming that some of the tables are used infrequently and some are used very frequently, you need to balance the frequently used tables across not only dbspaces, but disks and controllers. > > > Should we allocate multiple dbspaces for the large > > databases? > > Probably, depends on data and usage... I would agree again. Of course, you'll have to, if you want to use a fragmentation strategy, which it sounds like you would. > > > Are there any advantages to fragmenting dbspaces with a > > RAID-5 configuration? > > Yes, but the advantage of fragmentation is dependant on _several_ > other factors -like content, usage and fragmentation-method. > > RTFM and read > http://www.informix.com/informix/services/ilink/pubs/technote/tn99v9i2/c hap2.htm > > > Any suggestions for a good chunk naming convention? > > Depends on what you put in them. > It's nice to know what dbspace, database, table and fragment > it belongs to. > > If it's not on RAID-10, the disk/volume _could_ be nice to know > (for onperf, onstat and friends) > Agreed again, mostly. What I usually do is name the dbspace something meaningful, like <some table fragment 1> or somesuch, and name the links to the logical devices after the controller/disk/volume. > > I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on this subject. > > Me too;) Me three. > > Thomas > -- # unrm / ksh: unrm: not found # man cpio Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.