SEO

Folks,

We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical
application. We can not execute our
load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31.
Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been
pushing it.
Performance is about the same with our application.

Better off on 7.31.

And these problems are ?????

We got 3 major sites live now, with another one coming on line soon,
yes there has been some problems but they are all clear now.



Rich Campbell wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical
> application. We can not execute our
> load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31.
> Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been
> pushing it.
> Performance is about the same with our application.
>
> Better off on 7.31.

--
Paul Watson #
Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory
Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional
Fax: +44 1436 678693 #
Mob: +44 7818 003457 #
www.oninit.com #

Rich Campbell wrote:

> Folks,
>
> We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical
> application. We can not execute our
> load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31.
> Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been
> pushing it.
> Performance is about the same with our application.
>
> Better off on 7.31.
>
>

Either 7.31 or FUD?
Oh well... I could report some success cases...
It would be as useless as this post...

I'd love to migrate the systems I work with for 9.40... A very juicy version...

Regards.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:18:11 +0000, Fernando Nunes
<spam@domus.online.pt> wrote:

>Rich Campbell wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical
>> application. We can not execute our
>> load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31.
>> Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been
>> pushing it.
>> Performance is about the same with our application.
>>
>> Better off on 7.31.
>>
>>
>
>Either 7.31 or FUD?
>Oh well... I could report some success cases...
>It would be as useless as this post...
>
>I'd love to migrate the systems I work with for 9.40... A very juicy version...
>


Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit.....

Found one bug on Linux:
create table with extent size way over what was available
on the disk crashed the engine. Corrected the problem and
loaded 30 GB database OK.

Michael

Rich Campbell wrote:
> Folks,
>
> We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission critical
> application. We can not execute our
> load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31.
> Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has been
> pushing it.
> Performance is about the same with our application.
>
> Better off on 7.31.
>
>

And your platform is... ?

"Rich Campbell" <rich.campbell@att.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:bpg2fh$bs629@kcweb01.netnews.att.com...
> Folks,
>
> We have experienced many problems while testing 9.40 for a mission
critical
> application. We can not execute our
> load test without crashing the engine. We will be pulling back to 7.31.
> Very disappointed in the Quality Control of 9.40 since IBM/Informix has
been
> pushing it.
> Performance is about the same with our application.
>
> Better off on 7.31.
>
>

Rich Campbell opined:
>Better off on 7.31.

Unfortunately, the support on IDS 7.31 is ending. Although there is
still some time, the length of our development cycle and the need to
upgrade our customers is pushing us to migrate.

Fernando Nunes questioned the value of the original post:
>Either 7.31 or FUD?

At the tech conference, I talked to as many people as I could find who
have migrated. Given the almost universal loathing with which the
victims described their experiences migrating to 9.3, I was surprised
that almost every user liked moving to 9.4. Not that there were no
bumps, unsurprising with it still on interim 2 (my experience suggests
avioding even testing anything prior to UC2).

Then drooled over two of my favourite features:
> Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit.....

Let's not forget the end of the B-tree cleaner, the removal of the 2
GB limit, truly long lvarchars, an end to the 2GB limit, new datatypes
and built-in functions, and what was the other one? Oh, yeah. No more
2 GB limit.

Sincerely,

Christopher Coleman

Database Analyst
Pharmacy Division
Mediware Information Systems, Inc.

Can anyone (apart from Jonathan Lefler!) please explain to me why the
removal of the 2GByte chunk limit is so great?
I agree that the limit is a pain in the arse for database administrators.
But, apart from fewer chunks to keep a track of, what other step-changes
does it usher into our lives?

--
Neil Truby t:01932 724027
Director m:07798 811708
Ardenta Limited e:neil.truby@ardenta.com


"Christopher" <christopher.coleman@mediware.com> wrote in message
news:a727ee4f.0311200844.47da044e@posting.google.c om...
> Rich Campbell opined:
> >Better off on 7.31.
>
> Unfortunately, the support on IDS 7.31 is ending. Although there is
> still some time, the length of our development cycle and the need to
> upgrade our customers is pushing us to migrate.
>
> Fernando Nunes questioned the value of the original post:
> >Either 7.31 or FUD?
>
> At the tech conference, I talked to as many people as I could find who
> have migrated. Given the almost universal loathing with which the
> victims described their experiences migrating to 9.3, I was surprised
> that almost every user liked moving to 9.4. Not that there were no
> bumps, unsurprising with it still on interim 2 (my experience suggests
> avioding even testing anything prior to UC2).
>
> Then drooled over two of my favourite features:
> > Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit.....
>
> Let's not forget the end of the B-tree cleaner, the removal of the 2
> GB limit, truly long lvarchars, an end to the 2GB limit, new datatypes
> and built-in functions, and what was the other one? Oh, yeah. No more
> 2 GB limit.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher Coleman
>
> Database Analyst
> Pharmacy Division
> Mediware Information Systems, Inc.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:11:24 -0000, "Neil Truby"
<neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote:

>Can anyone (apart from Jonathan Lefler!) please explain to me why the
>removal of the 2GByte chunk limit is so great?
>I agree that the limit is a pain in the arse for database administrators.
>But, apart from fewer chunks to keep a track of, what other step-changes
>does it usher into our lives?

Makes it easier for DBAs to get along better with SysAdmins . . .
imagine a 250G instance . . . . that's 125 2G rawspaces.

Chris,

Don't get me wrong, being a long time Informix user and supporter, the
features in 9.40 are rich.

But stability counts the MOST, and 9.40 is NOT stable yet. We have had
three instance crashes when running a
real production "load test". Support has yet to explain them. Support
also says that 30 bugs are being fixed per week!!

Features are nice, stability is paramount when supporting an application
with 1000 users and 24 x 7 availability requirements for a business
critical application. Tell me how I am wrong?

Oh, and by the way end-of-life (support) for 7.31 and 9.40 happens to be the
same date. mid-2006. Check it out.

You will not uncover stability problems by just using the software in a
dev/test environment with limited usage.

What kind of application do you support?

Rich


"Christopher" <christopher.coleman@mediware.com> wrote in message
news:a727ee4f.0311200844.47da044e@posting.google.c om...
> Rich Campbell opined:
> >Better off on 7.31.
>
> Unfortunately, the support on IDS 7.31 is ending. Although there is
> still some time, the length of our development cycle and the need to
> upgrade our customers is pushing us to migrate.
>
> Fernando Nunes questioned the value of the original post:
> >Either 7.31 or FUD?
>
> At the tech conference, I talked to as many people as I could find who
> have migrated. Given the almost universal loathing with which the
> victims described their experiences migrating to 9.3, I was surprised
> that almost every user liked moving to 9.4. Not that there were no
> bumps, unsurprising with it still on interim 2 (my experience suggests
> avioding even testing anything prior to UC2).
>
> Then drooled over two of my favourite features:
> > Agreed.....redirected restores . . . . no more 2G chunk limit.....
>
> Let's not forget the end of the B-tree cleaner, the removal of the 2
> GB limit, truly long lvarchars, an end to the 2GB limit, new datatypes
> and built-in functions, and what was the other one? Oh, yeah. No more
> 2 GB limit.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher Coleman
>
> Database Analyst
> Pharmacy Division
> Mediware Information Systems, Inc.