Re: What INFORMIX product shall I use?

In article <335b1c95.5192566@gate.idg.no>, Nils Myklebust <Nils.Myklebust@idg.no> writes > >SE is still a very interesting alternative though. OWS is supposed to >be the replacement, and will give you a substantial performance >increase. However Informix still have quite a way to go to make it as >easy to install and particularly to administrate as SE. I am no sure It is very easy to install if you want to use cooked filesystems - just sepcify the directory and possibly a mirror directory and it will be installed and configured. Such a simple configuration will run similarly to SE i.e. slow comparted to full DSA. >Informix relizes how much they would have to do. It's so much in fact >that I would urge them very hard to retain SE for a long time for the >low end on Unix and consentrate on such enhancements o No - I'd rahter have OWS as it is more stable and survives crashes better. Just now finished restoring an SE system - we could not roll it forward because the transaction log had never been cleared down (the transaction log was 192Mb!!). This sort of problem does not occur with Online. Also since OWS and DSA use the same source code it means less work for Informix and hence a more stable engine, if DSA works then OWS is likely to work, SE is a different code stream. >n NT to have a >low administration, easy to use database on that platform. This isn't >all that hard, and would immediately render SE not particularly >interesting on NT. Whatever the opinion one might have of NT, Informix >need a low end engine for that platform and it must be very hight >quality in every respect. > Agreed, OWS would be good on NT. > >Nils.Myklebust@idg.no >NM Data AS, P.O.Box 9090 Gronland, N-0133 Oslo, Norway >My opinions are those of my company >The Informix FAQ is at http://www.iiug.org -- David Williams