Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!herbie From: herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong - DCS) Newsgroups: net.database Subject: Re: UNIX dbms (database sizes) Message-ID: <1624@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 13:54:00 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1624 Posted: Thu Aug 22 13:54:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 11:48:59 EDT References: <589@hlwpc.UUCP> <818@ptsfa.UUCP> Reply-To: herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong - DCS) Distribution: na Organization: U of Waterloo Lines: 23 Summary: In article <818@ptsfa.UUCP> jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (Jerry Carlin-4e750) writes: >There is no one 'best'. I would choose Unify if I needed a large >(say 10-250 megabyte) database, Ingres if I wanted a dbms with >all the bells and whistles and Informix if I wanted something that >also ran on pc's. just a side note. large IBM sites have single databases that are in the 100 to 200 Gbyte range and the very largest sites have databases of more than 1,000 Gbytes. do any of the unix database systems allow their data to fill more than one filesystem? does unix have the capability to handle about 20 or 30 disk drives? i know that very few people would be tempted to place such a large system onto a VAX or any kind, but are there limitations in the software also that will cause problems because of database size. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu