No future for DB2

[Sybrand Bakker]

Re: No future for DB2 - slightly off-topic, discusses what people are being taught at uni

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:24:14 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere .com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Unfortunatel y, most "DBA's" don't understand the nature of the application
>well enough, and they don't understand enough about how optimizers work, to
>make these decisions on a case by case basis. Many DBA's are looking for a
>single rule they can follow in every circumstance. IMO, these people are not
>real DBA's, and should consider becoming a UNIX/Linux Administrator.[/color]

If you are involved in remote maintenance, the customer bought the
application, the application is just a black box. Yet, when there are
performance problems invariably the DBA is blamed, while the vendor
plays the usual cover your ass game.

IMO, you are -as usual- generalizing way too much, and even worse,
your judgement of DBAs must be considered as offending and insulting.
But then of course you are only 'nobody@nowhere .com'


--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

[HansF]

Re: No future for DB2

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:27:05 -0600, Mark A interested us by writing:
[color=blue]
>
> I have seen 9i and 10g shops that don't use RMAN.[/color]

So have I. Generally for one of two reasons:

1) As a result of their experience with RMAN in Oracle8. (And, of course,
since it was not ready for prime time then, obviously it can't have
improved in the mean time. <g>)

2) They have their own way of doing backups, and are happy to pay money,
either to a third party vendor or to their development staff, to keep it
going. (Unfortunately in my experience, often without a restore mechanism.)

Funny that companies go out of their way to get the lastest verion of
some graphically-based OSs which provide less-than minimal incremental
benefit to the business (except perhaps more efficient ways of obtaining
RSIs) but refuse to use, or even to consider, that which is available in
Oracle "because of standards". C'est la vie.

--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard _at_gmail.com
*** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries ***

[Bob Jones]

Re: No future for DB2

[color=blue][color=green]
>> How could running recovery drills be easier in DB2 than in Oracle?[/color]
>
> db2 has less moving parts to worry about
>[/color]

Can you be more specific on what "moving parts" are?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If I were to compare Oracle and DB2, ease of use or support would be the
>> last thing come to mind. The overall difference is so minor. Anybody with
>> slightly different experience would disagree with you.[/color]
>
> once again, less moving parts. less stuff to manage. of course,
> sometimes those extra parts given oracle flexibility that's useful. at
> least theoretically that's the case. In my opion, it's also much less
> forgiving - in which every single configuration change is preceeded
> with a backup, and even shutting down the database can be a pain.
> That's something that just doesn't seem common in the db2 world - to do
> backups before every change. Talking about 9i here and v8 btw.
>[/color]

None of these makes any sense to me. Doing a backup before every
configuration change is a choice, an unusual one I might add, not a
requirement. That's not even something specific to Oracle. Many things can
be a pain if not done correctly, not just a simple task like shutting down a
database.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> No, partitioning is not included in DB2 Workgroup Edition. You can't even
>> do
>> simple replications in DB2 without purchasing a separate product.[/color]
>
> Last I checked, Workgroup Server Edition (WSE) costs $999 + $250 / user
> in the concurrent or registered model. It also supports:
> - replication
> - multi-dimensional clustering (very similar to oracle partitioning)
> - 64-bit instances
> - up to 4 cpus
> This means you could *easily* build a 2 TB data warehouse on db2 for
> under $1500 in licensing costs. And yeah, mdc is different than
> oracle's partitioning - lacks oracle's nice partition management. But
> is very easy to work with, and is great for performance. And of course
> you could also use union-all views - which are more similar to Oracle's
> partitioning. This capable is also *free*, and can be combined with
> mdc if you wish. And then if you want to take the next step and move
> into DPF (spanning multiple servers), either of these techniques can be
> *combined* with that partitioning strategy.
>[/color]

MDC and database paritioning are two different things, even in DB2 terms.
DPF (Database Partitioning Feature) is only available in DB2 ESE, even then
it still has to be licensed separately.
[color=blue]
> And how much does partitioning cost / server for oracle? $10,000? so,
> what are we looking at here? $1500 for db2 vs $40,000 just for oracle
> partitioning - not even including the base product?
>[/color]

How much does DB2 paritioning feature cost per CPU? And don't forget you can
also use union all views in Oracle without the paritioning feature, if you
think one can replace the other.

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2

Mark A wrote:[color=blue]
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
> news:1122837601 .611024@yasure. ..
>[color=green]
>>I think he is talking about dinosaurs that still use command line
>>scripts to back up Oracle and thus have to concern themselves with
>>control files, log files, data files, temp files, etc. But lets
>>acknowledge that these DBAs are dinosaurs using techniques no longer
>>reflecting best practice in the product.
>>
>>Sole exception from my comment ... those poor souls precluded from
>>upgrading to 9i or above by management short-sightedness.
>>--
>>Daniel A. Morgan[/color]
>
>
> I have seen 9i and 10g shops that don't use RMAN.[/color]

I have seen people drinking and driving.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2 - slightly off-topic, discusses parochialism

Captain Pedantic wrote:[color=blue]
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
> news:1122835935 .944779@yasure. ..
>[color=green]
>>Just as a group of physicians formed the American Board of Medical
>>Specialitie s (www.abms.org) and just as attorney's formed the American
>>Bar Association: ... More on this later and hopefully something about the
>>American College
>>of Database Professionals: ... orrganizations such as www.facs.org.[/color]
>
>
> Remind me what that "ww" stands for in www. again ...?[/color]

"Wide web" ;-)

I would encourage others, in their countries, to consider taking
similar action.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Mark A]

Re: No future for DB2 - slightly off-topic, discusses what people are being taught at uni

"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus@sybran db.demon.nl> wrote in message[color=blue]
> If you are involved in remote maintenance, the customer bought the
> application, the application is just a black box. Yet, when there are
> performance problems invariably the DBA is blamed, while the vendor
> plays the usual cover your ass game.
>
> IMO, you are -as usual- generalizing way too much, and even worse,
> your judgement of DBAs must be considered as offending and insulting.
> But then of course you are only 'nobody@nowhere .com'
> --
> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA[/color]

If a DBA doesn't have authority to change the indexes, or even recommend
changing indexes, then that is a situation I am not talking about..

I am talking about a situation where someone says (regardless of what they
have authority to change) that all foreign keys should have indexes, no
exceptions. I don't believe that is correct for Oracle or DB2 (or any other
RDBMS that I know about). I have explained in detail (in this and other
threads) the reasons why I think that is wrong.

I have also explained that far too many DBA's are looking for simple rules
that cover every situation, without having to think for themselves about how
indexes and optimizers work, or without having to analyze each situation for
optimum performance.

If you are offended and insulted that I think DBA's should be able to have a
basic understanding of the application they are working with, and should be
able to think for themselves, that is your right, but I suppose you and I
shall remain very far apart (both physically and conceptually).

[Larry]

Re: No future for DB2

And let me guess ... to replicate from Oracle on z/OS to a database on
LUW is free?

Larry E.

Bob Jones wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>No, partitioning is not included in DB2 Workgroup Edition. You can't even
>>>do simple replications in DB2 without purchasing a separate product.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>We have been discussing here primarily DB2 for Linux/UNIX/Windows right?
>>This is not true. Replication is included free-of-charge with DB2 WE and
>>with DB2 ESE.
>>[/color]
>
>
> I am talking about replicating data from DB2 on z to DB2 on LUW.
>
>[/color]

[Bob Jones]

Re: No future for DB2

Now, is z/OS Oracle's product or is it as open as UNIX, or even Windows?
Besides z/OS is not even a primary platform for Oracle, but it is for DB2.
[color=blue]
> And let me guess ... to replicate from Oracle on z/OS to a database on LUW
> is free?
>
> Larry E.
>
> Bob Jones wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>No, partitioning is not included in DB2 Workgroup Edition. You can't
>>>>even do simple replications in DB2 without purchasing a separate
>>>>product.
>>>>
>>>
>>>We have been discussing here primarily DB2 for Linux/UNIX/Windows right?
>>>This is not true. Replication is included free-of-charge with DB2 WE and
>>>with DB2 ESE.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> I am talking about replicating data from DB2 on z to DB2 on LUW.[/color][/color]

[Larry]

Re: No future for DB2

That's not the point. One of your complaints about DB2 was that
Replication costs $. It doesn't ... only on z/OS and i-series. So does
Oracle apparently.

Larry E.

Bob Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> Now, is z/OS Oracle's product or is it as open as UNIX, or even Windows?
> Besides z/OS is not even a primary platform for Oracle, but it is for DB2.
>
>[color=green]
>>And let me guess ... to replicate from Oracle on z/OS to a database on LUW
>>is free?
>>
>>Larry E.
>>
>>Bob Jones wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>No, partitioning is not included in DB2 Workgroup Edition. You can't
>>>>>even do simple replications in DB2 without purchasing a separate
>>>>>product.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We have been discussing here primarily DB2 for Linux/UNIX/Windows right?
>>>>This is not true. Replication is included free-of-charge with DB2 WE and
>>>>with DB2 ESE.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I am talking about replicating data from DB2 on z to DB2 on LUW.[/color][/color]
>
>
>[/color]

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2

Larry wrote:[color=blue]
> That's not the point. One of your complaints about DB2 was that
> Replication costs $. It doesn't ... only on z/OS and i-series. So does
> Oracle apparently.
>
> Larry E.[/color]

1. Please don't top post
2. So does Oracle apparently what?

Charge for replication services? No.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2

HansF wrote:[color=blue]
> So have I. Generally for one of two reasons:
>
> 1) As a result of their experience with RMAN in Oracle8. (And, of course,
> since it was not ready for prime time then, obviously it can't have
> improved in the mean time. <g>)
>
> 2) They have their own way of doing backups, and are happy to pay money,
> either to a third party vendor or to their development staff, to keep it
> going. (Unfortunately in my experience, often without a restore mechanism.)
>[/color]

I've seen a third-one:
they run Standard Edition and RMAN's functionality on
that one is brain-damageed and they can't take full
advantage of the product. So they stick to the good
old scripts that do exactly the same.

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2


bka wrote:[color=blue]
> the 1530 people who posted something about tpc in comp.databases:
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?hs=TwZ&h...G=Search&meta=
>
> ?[/color]

Well, this is not comp.databases.
It is comp.databases. oracle.server.
Stuff them.
Got it or you gonna continue this childish stuff?

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2

Chris ( Val ) wrote:[color=blue]
>
> | Maybe we'll see some management finally biting the bullet and
> | cleansweeping the Java crap off the place? Sure, it'll have to
> | be washed with liberal applications of marketing bullshit.
> | That shouldn't be a problem.
>
> :-)
>
> http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
>[/color]

LOL! Thanks, that one is a classic!
Don't get me started on "refactoring".. .

[bka]

Re: No future for DB2 - slightly off-topic, discusses parochialism

Wyoming-Wide

[bka]

Re: No future for DB2

>> Stuff them.[color=blue][color=green]
>> Got it or you gonna continue this childish stuff?[/color][/color]

this thread is cross posted to:
comp.databases. ibm-db2,comp.databa ses.informix,co mp.databases.or acle.server

but I do apologize for using the acronym tpc, which launched you into
your foaming at the mouth tirade and elicited the very adult phrases
"Stuff them", "wanker", "WTF", and "bullshit". sorry to lower the
thread to such a childish level with such disturbing opinions. i know
you'll do your best to keep it professional and respectful - your
posting history speaks for itself, and says volumes about your
circumspection, and why your opinions in this forum are valued as much
as they are worth.