Colin Dawson said:
> Does anyone have any experiences (good and bad) using Informix MaxConnect?
> I'm considering using it on 3 new client machines that will each make 80+
> connections to the database.
"That's like using a Buick to swat a fly"
-- Garfield

Signature
Bye now,
Obnoxio
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ? dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
"I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't get my head up my a.s"
- JCH
"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
- Marco
Travel broadens a person. You look as if you have been all over the world.
I went to the airport to check in and they asked what I did because I
looked like a terrorist. I said I was a comedian. They said, "Say
something funny then." I told them I had just graduated from flying
school.
-- Ahmed Ahmed
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/Obnoxio/thinkIfoundtheproblem.jpg
sending to informix-list
Hi,
80+ ? Does that mean 1000 and more ?
For 80+ connections (* 3 machines = 240) I would
not even start thinking about the spelling of MaxConnect. ;)
If you have many connections to your server instance (like
more than 1000) AND you see that the machine is CPU bound
and that is caused (consumed) by the server instance, then
I would start serious thinking about MaxConnect.
Just recently I was in contact with a consultant who enforced
my impression with his experience that in general it is better
to run MaxConnect on separate machines, i.e. on machines
that do neither run clients nor the server. Otherwise you can
easily end up with CPU bound client machines which will not really
help overall performance of the system.
Regards,
Martin
--
Martin Fuerderer
IBM Informix Development Munich, Germany
Information Management
owner-informix-list@iiug.org wrote on 29.03.2005 15:31:01:
> Does anyone have any experiences (good and bad) using Informix MaxConnect?
> I'm considering using it on 3 new client machines that will each make 80+
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> sending to informix-list
sending to informix-list