RE: Database Size Vs System Performance

And let me answer it in a slightly different way.

Why exactly would the DB need to "watch" anything?

Nothing can happen, open/close/read/write/update/delete/ect, that the DB isn't 
involved in.  Thus, it doesn't need to "watch" anything.  The DB will maintain 
the objects as they are used.

The only difference you'll see besides the extra DASD us will come from an 
increase in the number of objects in use.  For example, say you've got 10 
people using the same object in the current test library.  With the new setup, 
you might have 4 people using the test object, 3 using the development object 
and 3 using the training object.  So now instead of 1 active object, you've got 
3.

Unless you have a huge development staff which currently work on the same stuff 
at the same time and will now start working on different things, the difference 
will be nothing to worry about.

In other words, 10 people working with 10 test objects will not be any 
different than 4 people working on 4 test objects, 3 people working on 3 
development objects and 3 people working on 3 training objects.


HTH,
 

Charles Wilt
--
iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
ph: 513-573-4343
fax: 513-398-1121
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Scott Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:08 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: Database Size Vs System Performance
> 
> 
> Let me try that question a slightly different way.  Currently 
> the DB is 
> maintaining 344 PFs and 750 LFs.  If we double those numbers, what 
> affect will it have on performance?  I would have to believe 
> that if the 
> DB has to 'watch' over twice as many PFs and LFs, it would 
> have to take 
> some sort of toll on the system.  I am just looking for some rough 
> estimate on how much, if any.  I do understand what you are saying 
> though.  And it makes sense.  Just trying to cover my a** with the 
> powers that be at work.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Scott
>