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