No future for DB2

[Anton Versteeg]

Re: No future for DB2

rkusenet wrote:[color=blue]
> This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
> author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp
>[/color]

The author forgets a couple of things:
DB2 is the only RDBMS that runs on mainframe, midrange and PC servers.
(Oracle is non-existent on the mainframe)
There is more data stored in DB2 than in any other DBMS product.

The article is pure FUD.
--
Anton Versteeg
IBM Netherlands

[Mark D Powell]

Re: No future for DB2

When you really get down to it both AIX and Linux are just different
versions of UNIX. Our AIX machines are every bit as powerful as the
mainframe we migrated off of a decade ago. So Linux on a mainframe
makes perfect sense if you want to run a UNIX style system and the cost
of Linux is less than other available operating systems.

IBM is now trying to sell by service units and Java is expensive to run
under this pricing method; however, IBM sells for a very reasonable sum
Java co-processing units that remove the Java processing from the
billing. Since the underlying concept of Java is write once run
anywhere the ability to run Java on a mainframe makes perfect sense.
Whether it is the best tool for the job at hand is a different question
since most code written on a mainframe will ever run anywhere but on
the mainframe. But then again if your shop has mainframes, midrange
servers, and PC's to support the ability to have the programmers write
in Java on all three platforms instead of Visual Basic on the PC, C on
the Unix servers, and COBOL on the mainframe can be a real benefit.

IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

[Mike]

Re: No future for DB2

On 2005-07-26, Anton Versteeg <Anton_Versteeg @nnll.ibm.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> rkusenet wrote:[color=green]
>> This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
>> author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp
>>[/color]
>
> The author forgets a couple of things:
> DB2 is the only RDBMS that runs on mainframe, midrange and PC servers.
> (Oracle is non-existent on the mainframe)
> There is more data stored in DB2 than in any other DBMS product.
>
> The article is pure FUD.[/color]

Oracle does run on the host.

Mike

[bka]

Re: No future for DB2

The statement below is untrue. Bob, databaseboy, when will you become
Bob the databaseman, and get your facts straight?

DB2 revenue has grown on zOS since 1999. But DB2 has also grown revenue
consistently on Linux/UNIX/Windows every year since at least 1997.

BobTheDataBaseB oy wrote:
[color=blue]
> in addition to what's been remarked on: the data for the last
> 5 or so years make one thing quite clear -- DB2 revenue and installs
> growth are mainframe driven. factor that out, and there is little to
> negative growth.
>[/color]

[bka]

Re: No future for DB2

How credible is the author? This calls for a lexical analysis!

He mentions DB2 by name over 20 times, but he also mentions himself
more than a dozen times. So he is promoting himself whilst disparaging
DB2 at a 3:5 ratio. He also uses the word "irregardle ss", so eWeek may
not have thought it worthwhile to have an editor cleanse his prose.

Merriam-Webster provides this helpful advice on the word
"irregardle ss":

"Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early
20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the
attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently
repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such
a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can
be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not
risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general
acceptance. Use regardless instead."

[Captain Pedantic]

Re: No future for DB2

"bka" <badamache@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:1122397257 .304609.170140@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue]
> He also uses the word "irregardle ss", so eWeek may
> not have thought it worthwhile to have an editor cleanse his prose.[/color]

Or he might just be American.

[bka]

Re: No future for DB2

Strunk and White were American:

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (4th ed.):

"Irregardle ss. Should be regardless. The error results from failure
to see the negative in -less and from a desire to get it in as a
prefix, suggested by such words as irregular, irresponsible, and
perhaps especially, irrespective."

[Serge Rielau]

Re: No future for DB2

BobTheDataBaseB oy wrote:[color=blue]
> rkusenet wrote:
>[color=green]
>> This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
>> author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp
>>[/color]
>
> in addition to what's been remarked on: the data for the last
> 5 or so years make one thing quite clear -- DB2 revenue and installs
> growth are mainframe driven. factor that out, and there is little to
> negative growth.[/color]
5 to 10 years ago there was little to no DB2 UDB for LUW revenue.
How could it then be negative.
[color=blue]
> there is *no* DB2: there are three unrelated codebases. whether or if
> ibm will merge them, is opinion.[/color]
No opinion, fact: No merge. You stated below that Oracle falls appart on
zOS. Guess why? Same codebase on on *ix.
Aside.. Why do you think Oracle ships on different platforms at
different times?
I hardly call that one codebase when you need hordes of developers to port.

Cheers
Serge

PS: Just migrating Oracle RDB to DB2 .. one codebase: Hah, hah!

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[BobTheDataBaseBoy]

Re: No future for DB2

Serge Rielau wrote:[color=blue]
> BobTheDataBaseB oy wrote:
>[color=green]
>> rkusenet wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
>>> author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp
>>>[/color]
>>
>> in addition to what's been remarked on: the data for the last
>> 5 or so years make one thing quite clear -- DB2 revenue and installs
>> growth are mainframe driven. factor that out, and there is little to
>> negative growth.[/color]
>
> 5 to 10 years ago there was little to no DB2 UDB for LUW revenue.
> How could it then be negative.[/color]

total revenue for all database could well be negative without that
COBOL/VSAM hoary system migration. and i said, sort of, "from" *5*
years ago to now. 10 years ago LUW was either an infant or still
unborn. no argument about that.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > there is *no* DB2: there are three unrelated codebases. whether or if[/color]
>[color=green]
>> ibm will merge them, is opinion.[/color]
>
> No opinion, fact: No merge. You stated below that Oracle falls appart on
> zOS. Guess why? Same codebase on on *ix.[/color]

no offense to you, but i'm more inclined to think it's the armonk
version of Uncle Bill: "DOS ain't done til 1-2-3 won't run". and it
could be that Larry decided that it wasn't worth the effort to compete
where the OS was not agnostic (iSeries and zSeries; although different
histories). that's not argueable about S/38 integrated database. by
the way, PICK did it earlier. *nix is a level-ish playing field.
[color=blue]
> Aside.. Why do you think Oracle ships on different platforms at
> different times?
> I hardly call that one codebase when you need hordes of developers to port.[/color]

well, check out the o'reilly site: either letters or ask tim, don't
recall. q: why don't you publish platform specific versions of your
books. a: oracle is oracle, don't matter.

and so far as that goes, it's only been recently that IBM even had texts
available in bookstores. not a good move if you want mindshare.
[color=blue]
>
> Cheers
> Serge
>
> PS: Just migrating Oracle RDB to DB2 .. one codebase: Hah, hah!
>[/color]

my?!?! i just know what i read in the papers and see and hear with my
own two of each.

2005 (Colleen Graham) -- "Much of IBM's growth was generated by its DB2
on the zSeries"

2004 (Gartner, no name) -- IBM's growth was driven primarily by strong
sales on DB2 on the company's iSeries and zSeries

2002 (Gartner, no name Oracle refuting) -- only 37 percent of IBM's
database business is for UNIX and Windows NT

2002 (Gartner, no name) -- Windows... IBM 18.5 percent... Oracle 37.3
percent. UNIX... IBM (14.4 percent)... Oracle 66.2 percent

if any of these players really thought it was a slam dunk, they'd
publish per sector installs, revenue, and renewals audited figures. do
they??? i doubt it (to quote the Other Bob).

and for what it's worth: some of my colleagues get to go to the DB2
soirees (alas i must stay in CubeLand). either prior to or just back
from a recent one, one of said colleagues allowed as how we (CubeLand
management) and "other" Big Iron DB2 shops were on the verge of
threatening a defection, en masse, to Oracle. i allowed as how Big Iron
ex-COBOL/VSAM hoary systems don't get along all too well with mvcc type
engines, and it wouldn't be smart. we're still a Blue shop. perhaps
others know of this cabal??

by the way: i prefer DB2. if i could stay just on LUW, i'd be happy.
but i can't.

BobTheDataBaseB oy

[pobox002@bebub.com]

Re: No future for DB2

Data Goob wrote:
[color=blue]
> Not to start a flame war, but optimistic-vs-pessimistic locking is
> simply an architecture to deal with, it doesn't mean that one is
> better suited for the web or not.[/color]

Could you explain how you might implement pessimistic locking in
the context of a web application which is stateless and typically
uses connection pooling?

For example, User A gets the data with connection 1, user B gets
the same data with connection 2, user A updates the data with
connection 2 (or might not). Anything else is simply client server
running in a web browser, technically achievable but pointless.
Can user B not get the data that user A has? Or does each get a
different copy of the data and the application decides who wins?
[color=blue]
> If your assertion was true we'd all be forced to use Oracle,
> and the rest would have all died off.[/color]

No, it just means that somehow optimistic locking must be
implemented. It can be implemented in the application, or in the
database. It makes sense for the database to implement it as that
will provide a consistent transaction control mechanism, as opposed
to an ad hoc application dependent one. Also the cost benefits
go up with the number of applications and users that share the
data as the transaction control does not need to be re-implemented
with every new application.

I have seen developers needlessly implement their own transaction
and concurrency control in Oracle, either intentionally for database
indpendence, or just because they are used to doing it that way.

The result is always slower, less reliable and requires more code
and maintainance.

--
MJB

[pobox002@bebub.com]

Re: No future for DB2

> PS: Just migrating Oracle RDB to DB2 .. one codebase: Hah, hah!

Oracle <=> RDB
DB2 <=> Informix

Does this mean Informix will be assimilated?

--
MJB

[Bob Jones]

Re: No future for DB2

[color=blue]
> When you really get down to it both AIX and Linux are just different
> versions of UNIX. Our AIX machines are every bit as powerful as the
> mainframe we migrated off of a decade ago. So Linux on a mainframe
> makes perfect sense if you want to run a UNIX style system and the cost
> of Linux is less than other available operating systems.
>[/color]

The issue is more of the cost of mainframe rather than the cost of Linux.
Would anyone want to run Linux on mainframe when they can run it on x86 or
RISC? I am not talking about those who are unfortunately locked into
mainframe. The price/performance difference is just out of this world.
[color=blue]
> IBM is now trying to sell by service units and Java is expensive to run
> under this pricing method; however, IBM sells for a very reasonable sum
> Java co-processing units that remove the Java processing from the
> billing. Since the underlying concept of Java is write once run
> anywhere the ability to run Java on a mainframe makes perfect sense.
> Whether it is the best tool for the job at hand is a different question
> since most code written on a mainframe will ever run anywhere but on
> the mainframe. But then again if your shop has mainframes, midrange
> servers, and PC's to support the ability to have the programmers write
> in Java on all three platforms instead of Visual Basic on the PC, C on
> the Unix servers, and COBOL on the mainframe can be a real benefit.
>[/color]

I am only talking in terms of price/performance. Have you ever priced that
Java co-processor? I bet most people will get sticker shocks.
Java is "supposely" write once run anywhere, but that doesn't mean we have
to run it everywhere. It makes no sense to run it on mainframe when you can
run it much faster on x86 or RISC at a fraction of the price.

[Data Goob]

Re: No future for DB2

pobox002@bebub. com wrote:[color=blue]
> Data Goob wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Not to start a flame war, but optimistic-vs-pessimistic locking is
>>simply an architecture to deal with, it doesn't mean that one is
>>better suited for the web or not.[/color]
>
>
> Could you explain how you might implement pessimistic locking in
> the context of a web application which is stateless and typically
> uses connection pooling?
>
> For example, User A gets the data with connection 1, user B gets
> the same data with connection 2, user A updates the data with
> connection 2 (or might not). Anything else is simply client server
> running in a web browser, technically achievable but pointless.
> Can user B not get the data that user A has? Or does each get a
> different copy of the data and the application decides who wins?
>
>[color=green]
>>If your assertion was true we'd all be forced to use Oracle,
>>and the rest would have all died off.[/color]
>
>
> No, it just means that somehow optimistic locking must be
> implemented. It can be implemented in the application, or in the
> database. It makes sense for the database to implement it as that
> will provide a consistent transaction control mechanism, as opposed
> to an ad hoc application dependent one. Also the cost benefits
> go up with the number of applications and users that share the
> data as the transaction control does not need to be re-implemented
> with every new application.
>[/color]

A good argument for application logic in the database server. But
it also is a good arguement against using a web browser as the means
to run an application that would allow shared access to records that
can be updated. In other words, browser-based, "stateless" applications
are not well-suited to an environment where a record may be picked by
more than one user to be updated. It is also something to think about
when picking your next database engine, and think about whether or
not the high cost of a "built-in" record-protector in Oracle is worth
the cost, or maybe your application doesn't need that kind of feature,
and you can save a ton of money building your application with a simple
solution on a non-Oracle database, using a web browser.

[color=blue]
> I have seen developers needlessly implement their own transaction
> and concurrency control in Oracle, either intentionally for database
> indpendence, or just because they are used to doing it that way.
>
> The result is always slower, less reliable and requires more code
> and maintainance.
>[/color]
Building systems that allow several users the ability to update the
same record at any one time will always require some kind of application
logic no matter what database you use. For the money I'd want that logic
in the application rather than in the database engine, but then again
I'm always open to learning another way to do things if it will get the
job done.

[Superboer]

Re: No future for DB2

> This is a funny way of looking at. Obviously Oracle's none locking[color=blue]
> engine is perfectly suited to scaling multi user applications,
> particularly when most people are developing for stateless clients.[/color]

ahum does the above explain why informix was faster on a 5 times
smaller machine then obstacle...????

Superboer.

[Knut Stolze]

Re: No future for DB2

bka wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> factor that out, and there is little to
>> negative growth.[/color][/color]

That's always a funny one: "negative growth".[color=blue][color=green]
>>[/color][/color]

--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration Development
IBM Germany / University of Jena