Re: relative pathnames for chunks

Used them for years and have always found them to be supported by tech support. In fact there have been a number of bugs raised over the years against tools such as onmonitor and onspaces for not supporting them correctly. They are extremely useful for enabling you to create multiple copies of an instance on a single machine. Many Peoplesoft customers do this to create all the test instances that you need during upgrades and for providing enough environments for developers. In most cases these instances will be image copies of the production system, restored from a backup or taken from a simple dd. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Dare" <dareb@jevic.com> To: <informix-list@iiug.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 15:19 Subject: relative pathnames for chunks > Anyone know if it is OK to use a relative path to chunks. I have links to > my raw devices in $INFORMIXDIR/links. I would like to use a path relative > to $INFORMIXDIR for all my chunks. onspaces adds chunks that way OK and I > was able to store data on those chunks. But, from the manual: > > Specifying Names for Storage Spaces and Chunks > Chunk names follow the same rules as storage-space names. Specify an > explicit pathname for a storage space or chunk as follows: > > Would a relative path be explicit? Anybody ever done this? > > I figured I'd check here before blowing away the database and starting over > with all relative paths. > > Regards, > Bill > > sending to informix-list sending to informix-list