Hello everybody,

What would you recommend (or not recommend) for relatively small
database running on Linux? It should be reliable and fast storage
compatible with Linux. It is for new IDS 11 instance of about 20Gb.
Plus it would be used as shared file storage for few servers.

Am I looking for something that doesn't exist?

Thank you for any help

"Alexander" <homo.programmerus (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Depends on your budget. You can spend almost any amount on this.

These days for less than £10,000 you can get a basic IBM (or NetApp etc) FC
stirage array which you could carve up into a bit ofRAID1+0 for Informix,
and RAID-5 for the file servers. The more you have to spend, the more
cache, multipathing, management and performance software you can get.

Below that; well we set a couple of customers up on the iSCSI storage they
wanted to use. Seemed to perform OK in test but unfortuantely they switched
to a competitor before we went live with them, so I don't know how this held
up in live.

Finally, if your system is low-volume, you might be find running off a
couple of fast, mirrored, internal SAS disks - should be less than £1k.

Hello Alexander,

Neil is right. Just 2 more ideas for speed. Flash drives are coming
down in price and work great in our tests. Plus putting the temp
dbspaces in ramdrive help speed up sorting. But then don't forget to
drop and recreate the temp dbspaces every time you bring up the
engine.

-L.S.

On Jun 30, 2:18*pm, LIGHT SCANS <light_sc... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Thank you guys for sharing information.

We've decided to get IBM DS3400 with SAS disks and exra cache. All
looks good but I'm a little confused about cost of extra volume
license. It has license for 4 volumes and any extra one would cost
couple thousand. I guess 4 is enough if we split single volume by
offset/size to create multile dbspaces.

Cheers

Alexander schrieb:
Hello Alexander,

a general thing you must consider is cache usage.
Whatever exactly saying 'Plus it would be used as shared file
storage for few servers' means, if this is like SAMBA or NFS then
it may flood your cache so you database reads must wait for
upstaging as the cache will hold some sort of flat file for
one of the few servers. Then you will see how fast (or better:
how slow) the disk is where you 2KB database page is on.

Have a look at the real cheap equipment, like infortrend.com
and consider putting file server data onto another subsystem.

And, befor Art does it, I point you to www.baarf.com:
Never ever believe, that RAID5 or 6 is appropriate for
any database usage.

Better to go to next cheaper equipment, than to go RAID 5
to save some slack disk space because of price. MUCH better.

If you are in Europe, have a look at starline.de, they have
a broad range on cheap but very functional I/O subsystems.

If you need reference: look in to plasma physics at CERN
they run an array of O RAC clusters on cheap I/O subsystems
w/o having more troubles than other sites on equipment,
which is like 10-20 times the price.

Next to a lot of press release garbage, here is an article
telling, that it is possible to use 256GB SSDs on the
Infortrend A16F.
https://www.globenewswire.com/newsro....html?d=165674

We do this now since 256GB SSDs are on the market and
customers have good results: Less power, no vibratons in
the rack and much less power consumption at the climating.
Plus very good performance.

Good luck
dic_k
--
Richard Kofler
SOLID STATE EDV
Dienstleistungen GmbH
Vienna/Austria/Europe

On Jul 1, 3:19*pm, Richard Kofler <richard.kof... (AT) chello (DOT) at> wrote:
Thank you guys for all your input.

Richard, we are not going to use RAID-5 as Informix dbspaces. Luckily,
it could be as simple as RAID 1+0 or even JBOD.

Cheers
Alexander