Page 1 of 1

Information Server 8.0.1 Unix Parallel Client 2 GIG Req:

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:28 pm
by cundyp
We are getting ready to install Information Server 8.0.1 Unix, Parallel from 7.5.1 Unix Parallel.

We understand that the client has a 2 gig memory requirement.
Our managers want to see this in writing but we can't find it in the IBM docs.

Question: Is 2 gig a valid client memory requirement and does anyone know where its documented?

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:10 pm
by asorrell
Try this link:

http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.ws ... 23&rs=2321

Fairly far down in it you'll find...

Memory requirements

The minimum amount of memory for installing the IBM Information Server client layer is 2 GB. The recommended amount of memory for installing the domain and engine layers is 4 - 8 GB. The MetaBrokers and bridges do not require any additional memory to install.

Evaluate the following factors to determine the memory requirements for your system:

Other software on the same server
Performance requirements
Size and complexity of your configuration
Extent of activity and the number of clients that access your system
Processing for the temporary tables and sorts that are performed by the servers to avoid disk input and output

The main reason for the increase is the new java-based client (which requires the java-engine). Most of the IBM SE's say that the client will be ok with 2 GB, but if you typically run several other applications at the same time you might want to consider 3GB.

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:19 pm
by ray.wurlod
Andy wrote:The main reason for the increase is the new java-based client (which requires the java-engine). Most of the IBM SE's say that the client will be ok with 2 MB, but if you typically run several other applications at the same time you might want to consider 3MB.
He means GB, of course, not MB.
Only Bill Gates believes that 640KB is all the memory you'll ever need.

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:35 am
by asorrell
Ouch! Yes it was supposed to be GB. Sorry about the typo, I was in a hurry. I've corrected it. Thanks for catching that Ray!

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:42 am
by chulett
Guess you haven't picked up my PM yet, Andy. At least I tried to keep things hush hush and a little more covert rather than a public correction. :wink: