runing IDS 11.7 Linux guest, Windows Host VmWare
The poster asked whether to run IDS 11.70 for five companies as one Linux VM with multiple instances or as five separate VMs under VMware on a Windows host, and about raw vs cooked chunks and disk layout. Replies: virtualized I/O is much slower than bare metal (possibly as low as 10%), "raw" devices inside a VM are illusory since the VM's disks are files on the host, so cooked files are fine; multiple instances on bare iron would be far better. Art Kagel advised using 11.70.FC7/UC7 (readahead bugs fixed after FC6), enabling DIRECT_IO, ext2 chunks, and avoiding RAID 5/6/50/60 in favour of RAID 1 or 10. The customer's choices (VMware on Windows, RAID 50) were fixed, so no change was recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Has something been discussed before about whether this is good and safe practice. I have a requirement to run up to 5 companies on a linux server. Currently they use only one CentOS4 linux server with Informix SE. Is it better to institute ONE linux server guest, with 5 instances of Informix - the database is always named the same, or rather run 5 virtual machines. Informix version 11.70.UC5IE likely to be deployed by the customers. What is the implications of running on a VM in terms of data storage space. I have been led to understand one should use RAW space, or ext2 file systems. How will the IDS be affected by the underlying OS as well. There is likely to be moments of intense disk access as well. There are no blobs at the moment.
Hello. I know, virtualization could be a great choice, but you will never get the same performance (mainly comparing IO levels), that you could have in a physical server. As my personal opinion, using raw devices, or cooked files, depends mostly of your needs (performance of raw is always better, of course), but you can have a good machine, with several hundreds of users connected, and around 40 Gigs of data, using cooked files. More than that, you will certainly be recommended to step to raw devices, a more efficient, and more professional approach. Just follow Mr Art Kagel tips: never use RAID5 in your filesystem, give priority to ext2 in your chunks devices, and turn DIRECT_IO on. Oh! Another great feature, is Informix deployment utility (unfortunately, but understandable, it only works if your database use cooked files). Regards. Alexandre Marini IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional IBM Infosphere DataStage Technical Professional Informix Senior DBA - Orizon Brasil BRIUG website administrator Informix independent consultant > To: ids@iiug.org > From: chuckmailhere@gmail.com > Subject: runing IDS 11.7 Linux guest, Windows Host VmWare [29425] > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:40:56 -0500 > > Has something been discussed before about whether this is good and safe > practice. > I have a requirement to run up to 5 companies on a linux server. > Currently they use only one CentOS4 linux server with Informix SE. > > Is it better to institute ONE linux server guest, with 5 instances of Informix > - the database is always named the same, or rather run 5 virtual machines. > Informix version 11.70.UC5IE likely to be deployed by the customers. > > What is the implications of running on a VM in terms of data storage space. I > have > been led to understand one should use RAW space, or ext2 file systems. How > will > the IDS be affected by the underlying OS as well. There is likely to be > moments of > intense disk access as well. > > There are no blobs at the moment. > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. >
Points: IO performance on a VMWare is VERY poor. Sometimes as bad as 10% of performance on bare iron . If you are using the newest VMWare hypervisor (Sphere? dunno) it is about 2x better, but still very poor. On top of that you will be hosted on Windows! RAW disk under a VM is pretend since the whole VM is running in a cooked file on the host OS. You cannot be certain that the host will flush to disk when the VM flushes its virtual disks. If you can simply have multiple Informix Instances on a single bare iron OS, that will perform much better. FYI, it is best to run version 11.70.FC6 or later since the problems with the new readahead algorithm were not finally resolved until that version. Art Art S. Kagel Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:40 AM, BOB KOT <chuckmailhere@gmail.com> wrote: > Has something been discussed before about whether this is good and safe > practice. > I have a requirement to run up to 5 companies on a linux server. > Currently they use only one CentOS4 linux server with Informix SE. > > Is it better to institute ONE linux server guest, with 5 instances of > Informix > - the database is always named the same, or rather run 5 virtual machines. > Informix version 11.70.UC5IE likely to be deployed by the customers. > > What is the implications of running on a VM in terms of data storage > space. I > have > been led to understand one should use RAW space, or ext2 file systems. How > will > the IDS be affected by the underlying OS as well. There is likely to be > moments of > intense disk access as well. > > There are no blobs at the moment. > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --f46d0444ed3768048f04d46bc9e9
Thank you Art Kagel and Alexandre for your responses. The customer has determined the use of VMs on a Windows host. I understand the VM to be vSphere 5 Essentials. I was thinking I would have to be using cooked files, as I thought the same - "pretend" RAW disk. I have previously read your (Art Kagel's treatise) on avoiding RAID and using RAW/ext2 for the chunks. However I do understand that the underlying host will be using RAID 5 technology. Should I be scared? A single bare iron linux is not an option (the customer feels he is right), and we would be talking about at least 15 instances (5 live all day, and 5 for training and 5 for Archived information barely referred to very often at all). But the 5 live instances on one server would still be pushing the limits of the Innovator-C's 2GB memory limits as I understand it. Some instances of the application would have about 5 to 10 users logging on, the biggest about 75. At night when there are no users there are some batch jobs. I note your (Art) comment about 11.7.FC6 - would Informix Innovator-C Edition for Linux x86 32 (Version 11.70UC7IE ) be appropriate.
On RAID 5: Be afraid. Be very afraid. See my latest posting to the baarf.comsite for details. I have scientufic proof now. Industry and physicist's studies referenced there. V 11.70.FC7IE would be ideal. Art On Jan 29, 2013 7:07 AM, "BOB KOT" <chuckmailhere@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Art Kagel and Alexandre for your responses. > > The customer has determined the use of VMs on a Windows host. I understand > the > VM to be vSphere 5 Essentials. > > I was thinking I would have to be using cooked files, as I thought the > same - > "pretend" RAW disk. > > I have previously read your (Art Kagel's treatise) on avoiding RAID and > using > RAW/ext2 for the chunks. However I do understand that the underlying host > will > be using RAID 5 technology. Should I be scared? > > A single bare iron linux is not an option (the customer feels he is right), > and we would be talking about at least 15 instances (5 live all day, and 5 > for > training and 5 for Archived information barely referred to very often at > all). > But the 5 live instances on one server would still be pushing the limits of > the Innovator-C's 2GB memory limits as I understand it. > > Some instances of the application would have about 5 to 10 users logging > on, > the biggest about 75. At night when there are no users there are some batch > jobs. > > I note your (Art) comment about 11.7.FC6 - would Informix Innovator-C > Edition > for Linux x86 32 (Version 11.70UC7IE ) be appropriate. > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --e89a8ff2535c56ed7704d46ccd8d
The client says they will be using RAID50. How do we feel about that?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, BOB KOT <chuckmailhere@gmail.com> wrote: > The client says they will be using RAID50. How do we feel about that? > Roughly, Barf.... http://www.baarf.com/ -- Jonathan Leffler <jonathan.leffler@gmail.com> #include <disclaimer.h> Guardian of DBD::Informix - v2013.0118 - http://dbi.perl.org "Blessed are we who can laugh at ourselves, for we shall never cease to be amused." --047d7b343b2a34ba0404d485e1d0
They are idiots ? > The client says they will be using RAID50. How do we feel about that? > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > -- Paul Watson Tel: +1 913-674-0360 Mob: +1 913-387-7529 Web: www.oninit.com www.advancedatatools.com Failure is not as frightening as regret. If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians
We use RAID1217 here. j. On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Paul Watson wrote: > They are idiots ?=20 >=20 >> The client says they will be using RAID50. How do we feel about that?=20= >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > = **************************************************************************= *****=20 >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.=20= >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Paul Watson=20 > Tel: +1 913-674-0360=20 > Mob: +1 913-387-7529=20 > Web: www.oninit.com=20 >=20 > www.advancedatatools.com=20 >=20 > Failure is not as frightening as regret.=20 > If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.=20= > What this country needs are more unemployed politicians=20 >=20 >=20 > = **************************************************************************= *****=20 > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.=20= >=20
RAID5, RAID6, RAIDZ, RAID50, RAID60 - All NOT SAFE FOR ANY IMPORTANT PURPOSE! RAID51, RAID61 - Why bother, nothing gained over RAID10 here, much performance lost, and increased recovery time causes increased risk of data loss. If you want safe data redundancy, then it's RAID1 or RAID10, nothing else. Art Art S. Kagel Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, BOB KOT <chuckmailhere@gmail.com> wrote: > The client says they will be using RAID50. How do we feel about that? > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --bcaec554df40c606b004d4867be8