Hello, I have another question. Again, new to Informix and just doing
research for a Linux implementation. Is there a setting that can
control the total database memory allowed for Informix to use for all
databases and instances (not sure if instance is the right terminology
for Informix).

I want to restrict memory usage on the machine. So, lets say we have
16GB total memory available on the machine..I want to allow Informix
only 3 GB of that. Thanks

oh..also think around 300 threads connected to this database.

My largest OLTP table contains 282 million rows and the engine handles about
3 million transactions per day using 2 dual core CPUs and 3GB of memory for
Informix with an average CPU idle of 80-90%. I would classify this as a
small to medium sized Informix install, there are much larger Informix
installs out there. 5-6 million rows should not be a problem.

Andrew

On Sep 2, 12:06*pm, Andrew Ford <af... (AT) networkip (DOT) net> wrote:
Thanks all..great information. I agree that 6 Million is not really
that big since the big RDBMSs can navigate 100's of millions of
records but, sorry to say, Informix isnt on the list of the top RDBMSs
so I wasnt sure. I will have a different view of Informix from now
on. I do have to say that I am pretty impressed by all that I have
researched so far and puzzled why it is not in the running with
Oracle, DB2 and MS.

Shorti,

please send your remark in VERY BIG letters to IBM Management and Marketing!
We all will back you up!

Regards,
Joerg Volz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: informix-list-bounces (AT) iiug (DOT) org [mailto:informix-list-bounces (AT) iiug (DOT) org] On Behalf Of shorti
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 9:25 PM
To: informix-list (AT) iiug (DOT) org
Subject: Re: Memory Management

On Sep 2, 12:06*pm, Andrew Ford <af... (AT) networkip (DOT) net> wrote:
Thanks all..great information. I agree that 6 Million is not really
that big since the big RDBMSs can navigate 100's of millions of
records but, sorry to say, Informix isnt on the list of the top RDBMSs
so I wasnt sure. I will have a different view of Informix from now
on. I do have to say that I am pretty impressed by all that I have
researched so far and puzzled why it is not in the running with
Oracle, DB2 and MS.

_______________________________________________
Informix-list mailing list
Informix-list (AT) iiug (DOT) org
http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

IT Handel und Beratung Jörg Volz
Bernhard-Früh-Str. 7
77855 Achern
GERMANY

Tel: +49 (0)7841-681651
Fax: +49 (0)7841-681654
Mobil: +49 (0)170-2989757

VAT-ID: DE201383541

http://www.it-volz.de

On 02-09-2010 18:47, Alexandre Marini wrote:
It means you *waste* too much on your hardware!
Joking!

On 02-09-2010 20:24, shorti wrote:
Because in the current "fast" world nobody does what you're doing...
I'd say people do this associations:

MS -> Cheap & easy
Oracle -> Leader
DB2 -> IBM (for better and for worst)

Congratulations for your achievement...

Regards.

Sigh.

Define by what you mean "fast".

If you're talking strictly RDBMS for OLTP (read TPC-C type benchmarking),Informix probably blows the competition away on the Intel e5500+ series.
The reason I say probably is that well, IBM doesn't *do* benchmarks usingInformix. (Even though Jerry K. hinted at it some time ago but was again forced to back peddle because well IDS isn't DB2.)
(And nobody but mainframe dominated shops want DB2 LUW.)

Imagine this... 2 socket 4 core e5500 series Intel chips. (This is *now* a commodity hardware platform BTW...) Put this in to a 4U high box, and two"high end" SAS/SATA controller that can do 6.0 gbs (SATA III).
I forget who posted this out of Germany but you're better off using SSDs over the FusionIO cards, so taking his word, go with 2.5" SSDs. (I believe that SATA III drive are actually cheaper than SATA II now...)
If the motherboard doesn't have 10GBe, you can get a seriously good card from Solarflare.

Fully loaded a machine would set you back $12-15K fully loaded with 64-96GBof memory.

Go run your TPC-C and calculate your cost per transaction.

Your most expensive component will be the cost of the IDS engine running on8 cores.

IDS will be able to take advatage of the multiple cores better than any other RDBMs on the market.

But if by fast you mean DW and processing through hundreds of TB of information, or even a PB of information, then no. IDS is not "fast". You'll need to go to a distributed system which means NOSQL Hadoop/HBase depending on what you're trying to do. And with Pig now able to hit against HBase... well. Yes, you can get fast. Google/Yahoo!/Facebook/Twitter/etc ... fast.

MS isn't really cheap or easy when you consider that it doesn't scale and on the low end you could go MySQL or Postgres for a lower TCO. (You have to pay for Windows 7 ;-)


But getting back to the RDBMS world... We don't know how fast because IDS isn't bench marked.

There's more to this, but why talk about something where it doesn't matter.

BTW if I were to go IDS, I'd build an Apple OS/X server or set of them soI could run the full enterprise release for free. (Assuming that IBM is still updating and maintaining the Apple release. ) ;-)
(The downside is that the hardware is more expensive, but when you consider the savings on Software costs... still cheaper. ;-)


-G

Hello Fernando,

I hate to disappoint you, however MS is not easy; try to restore a
complete level 0 backup, you will see what a can of wurms that is.
Besides that monitoring and trying to grab the hottest sql is not
easy(sqlsrv2005); the stuff described can be used; however when a
query ends,
then the needed info is stored in the relevant tables so you will
never see the hottest sql in action that also may cause you to miss a
problem sql.

Obstacle is a leader; yeah however i still can not understand why
people accept the pile of shit.
online backup one needs the trx log and createing / restoreing looks
like how informix used to do this with onarchive which was the worst
piece of shit ever produced by informix. The data you gonna get in
your backup is when the backup ends.
Missing set lock mode to wait xxx

DB2CV well i have not touched this nor come across this for a long
time fortunatly, if you add a container does it still redistribute all
data
in your tablespace??? and the equiv of xps, does it still give you an
error when you update a row which should cause the row to move to
another
partition; if you unload a table with blobs are blobs still written in
file.XXX where XXX goes from 000 to 999.
set lock mode to wait for the whole instance??


Informix is way fast and easy!!!!!! Dono about priceing; am not a bean
counter.


Superboer.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Superboer <superboer7 (AT) t-online (DOT) de> wrote:


You did not disappoint me
What I wrote is not my opinion. It's what I think the market thinks. And as
usual (contrary to other posters ) I may be wrong!
But it's always nice to see others opinions, specially when they are
friendly to Informix

Regards.
--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...