SEO

Hi All,

Right now, the area of I have some measure of input on is the onconfig.std

If I had to Pick one of the below to configure for the oncnofig.std template, which one would you prefer.

While not the only change to the onconfig.std, the purpose behind this question is so that there is cohesion to the onconfig.std parameters, which is obviously a bit different than the current onconfig.std you got from an version like 9.40.UC5, for example.

A small, medium, large, XL, XXL type of onconfig offering is definitely a point to be considered, however a question I would ask regarding that, is why?

The reason I ask is because onconfig.std should really meant to be a template. Its intent now is to see how everything can be configured, and how they relate to each other. I know that this answer essentially means that for all intents and purposes onconfig.std can actually be based on an arbitrary system, for example like the one I mentioned in the initial e-mail. However we want to make sure we don't over configure for the "average" sandbox.




----- Original Message ----
From: Tool <tool@thetool.com>
To: informix-list@iiug.org
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:59:08 PM
Subject: Re: Out of Box Experience for Cheetah.


Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> I'd go a step (or two) further:
>
> onconfig.sandbox - 1CPU, 512MB RAM, 5GB, 1 tempdbspace of 1GB
> onconfig.small - 2 CPU, 2GB RAM, 20GB, 2 temp spaces of 2.5GB
> onconfig.medium - 4 CPU, 4GB RAM, 100GB, 3 temp spaces of 5GB
> onconfig.large - 8 CPU, 8GB RAM, 250GB, 6 temp spaces of 10GB
>
> All should have a minimal BLOB / SmartBLOB space, say 1 GB each.
>
> (These are all discussion points, but I think their should be a number of
> semi-tuned options. ;o)
>
I'd have agree with OTC on these. I've got a beater Pentium III right now
using 1CPU, 512MB RAM, 100GB of IDE drive space available, easy to chop up. His
designation of sandbox would equal what I would call "tiny" compared to
current stuff on the market. I've also got x86_64 AMD boxes too, running
Linux and SATA drives.

The other thing that starts to get rather sticky is, what are
you refering to as a CPU when you start talking about DualCore
and hyperthreading, both give the appearance of being 2 CPUs
per physical CPU. Guess this is a little out of scope but
interesting to consider for processor affinity, etc.

_______________________________________________
Informix-list mailing list
Informix-list@iiug.org
http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list