Professional Web Applications Themes

Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle. - Informix

Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle. The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash. I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard. Peter...

  1. #1

    Default Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.

    I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.


    Peter
    Peter Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Hmmm. So ... no details. No version/release levels ... no platform
    information. No details on what you were trying to do. No details on the
    application. No details on the crash. No details on what the corrective
    fix was. You're obviously more experienced with Oracle. And you're ready
    to pass judgement on DB2 already?

    Larry

    Peter wrote:
    > Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    > The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
    >
    > I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    >
    > Peter
    Larry Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    "Peter" <peter_and_john2003> wrote in message
    news:396cd6da.0309111138.59804915posting.google.c om...
    > Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    > The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
    >
    > I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    >
    >
    > Peter
    Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.


    Mark A Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    sorry, this is comp.databases.PICK???????????

    --
    ==============================
    Simon Verona
    [email]simonaphroditeuk.com[/email]
    ==============================
    "Mark A" <maswitchboard.net> wrote in message
    news:pr48b.409$SZ.32376news.uswest.net...
    > "Peter" <peter_and_john2003> wrote in message
    > news:396cd6da.0309111138.59804915posting.google.c om...
    > > Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    > > The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
    > >
    > > I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    > >
    > >
    > > Peter
    >
    > Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 28/08/2003

    Simon Verona Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Larry wrote:
    > And you're ready to pass judgement on DB2 already?
    Surprised it took that long ? :-P

    Mark Townsend Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    "Simon Verona" <newsaphroditeuk.com> wrote in message news:<bjqke1$o0h$1hercules.btinternet.com>...
    > sorry, this is comp.databases.PICK???????????
    >
    > --
    > ==============================
    > Simon Verona
    > [email]simonaphroditeuk.com[/email]
    > ==============================
    > "Mark A" <maswitchboard.net> wrote in message
    > news:pr48b.409$SZ.32376news.uswest.net...
    > > "Peter" <peter_and_john2003> wrote in message
    > > news:396cd6da.0309111138.59804915posting.google.c om...
    > > > Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    > > > The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
    > > >
    > > > I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > >
    > > Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 28/08/2003
    In the past, I had experienced DB2 V7.2 on Linux RH7.2 instance
    crashing just from select too. IBM tech support wasn't able to fix
    that so I had to find a workaround on my own at the app level. Hope
    that V8.1 is more stable :-))
    efiryago@profitlogic.com Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    > In the past, I had experienced DB2 V7.2 on Linux RH7.2 instance
    > crashing just from select too. IBM tech support wasn't able to fix
    > that so I had to find a workaround on my own at the app level. Hope
    > that V8.1 is more stable :-))
    DB2 version 8.1 works quite well on RH Linux 7.2 or 8. I don't for one
    second believe your version of what happened.


    Mark A Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Let's put it this way ... I'd like to hear the entire story. The
    application, the version/release levels, the PMR number, the error
    message, the select statement, full details on the hardware and software
    environment, the os levels, all patch levels, etc.

    Larry

    Mark A wrote:
    > > In the past, I had experienced DB2 V7.2 on Linux RH7.2 instance
    > > crashing just from select too. IBM tech support wasn't able to fix
    > > that so I had to find a workaround on my own at the app level. Hope
    > > that V8.1 is more stable :-))
    >
    > DB2 version 8.1 works quite well on RH Linux 7.2 or 8. I don't for one
    > second believe your version of what happened.
    Larry Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    But not as quickly as a certain large HR software company passed
    judgement on a certain RDBMS vendor :-)

    Mark Townsend wrote:
    > Larry wrote:
    >
    > > And you're ready to pass judgement on DB2 already?
    >
    > Surprised it took that long ? :-P
    smartdba@nospam.net Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Friends!

    I am not anti DB2. It is a good
    database on Main Frames system.

    System crash, if it has not happened on your
    production server running DB2 so far, please
    wait for 6-8 months.


    Peter



    [email]wizofoz2k.au[/email] (Noons) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0309112234.77eaa91eposting.google. com>...
    > "Mark A" <maswitchboard.net> wrote in message news:<pr48b.409$SZ.32376news.uswest.net>...
    > > "Peter" <peter_and_john2003> wrote in message
    > > news:396cd6da.0309111138.59804915posting.google.c om...
    > > > Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    > > > The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
    > > >
    > > > I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > >
    > > Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.
    >
    > x-post trimmed in the interests of sanity...
    >
    >
    > I thought DB2 didn't need DBAs, that was just another
    > "expensive option" needed only for Oracle?
    > Tsk,tsk, there goes the TCO crap...
    >
    > Cheers
    > Nuno Souto
    > [email]wizofoz2k.au.nosp[/email]am
    Peter Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    > Friends!
    >
    > I am not anti DB2. It is a good
    > database on Main Frames system.
    >
    > System crash, if it has not happened on your
    > production server running DB2 so far, please
    > wait for 6-8 months.
    >
    >
    > Peter
    >
    DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2 because
    it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle jobs
    in the marketplace. All systems have problems occasionally, just ask Ebay
    about their outages caused by Oracle crashes and hangs.

    If you personally had problems that could not be resolved with IBM support,
    then maybe it was unique to your situation and use of the product.


    Mark A Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    >I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.

    I've used both and there is something in what you say. For example - UDB has
    only recently introduced Sequences and they've been around in Oracle for eons.
    Similar story with Materialised Views.

    But I don't really want to enter this debate, just refreshing to hear a non IBM
    view for once.

    We've got one guy who is responsible for db policy, who's set up his own
    company as a sideline to specialise in DB2. Our management don't see the
    conflict of interests.

    His motto could be "the answer is UDB - and the question is ?"


    MCPHEAL Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    "MCPHEAL" <mcphealaol.com> wrote in message
    news:20030912134448.07492.00000579mb-m27.aol.com...
    > >I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    >
    > I've used both and there is something in what you say. For example - UDB
    has
    > only recently introduced Sequences and they've been around in Oracle for
    eons.
    > Similar story with Materialised Views.
    >
    > But I don't really want to enter this debate, just refreshing to hear a
    non IBM
    > view for once.
    >
    > We've got one guy who is responsible for db policy, who's set up his own
    > company as a sideline to specialise in DB2. Our management don't see the
    > conflict of interests.
    >
    > His motto could be "the answer is UDB - and the question is ?"
    >
    Oracle introduces non-standard SQL features and then tries to get them
    adopted as an SQL standard. IBM tries to adhere to SQL standards until they
    are enacted. Just a difference in philosophy. Oracle does have more
    features, but is much more proprietary in nature and includes many
    programming (non database) features built-in. If one is willing to be tied
    to Oracle forever (and pay their license and maintenance fees), then there
    may be no problem. But usually DBA's and developers don't care about who
    pays or what the cost will be down the road.

    As you may have noticed, decisions about which DBMS to use are seldom made
    on the merits of the products. Other considerations, such as company
    standardization, familiarity with the product, future job prospects of those
    who will use the product, etc, far out-weigh an objective comparison of the
    products.


    Mark A Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Larry <lsedelsus.ibm.com> wrote in message news:<3F60D26D.C8BCDE15us.ibm.com>...
    > Hmmm. So ... no details. No version/release levels ... no platform
    > information. No details on what you were trying to do. No details on the
    > application. No details on the crash. No details on what the corrective
    > fix was. You're obviously more experienced with Oracle. And you're ready
    > to pass judgement on DB2 already?
    >
    > Larry
    >
    > Peter wrote:
    >
    > > Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
    > > The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
    > >
    > > I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
    > >
    > > Peter
    Troll, or part of a new Oracle marketing ploy?


    DG
    Database Guy Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Mark A wrote:
    >>Friends!
    >>
    >>I am not anti DB2. It is a good
    >>database on Main Frames system.
    >>
    >>System crash, if it has not happened on your
    >>production server running DB2 so far, please
    >>wait for 6-8 months.
    >>
    >>
    >>Peter
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2 because
    >it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle jobs
    >in the marketplace. All systems have problems occasionally, just ask Ebay
    >about their outages caused by Oracle crashes and hangs.
    >
    >If you personally had problems that could not be resolved with IBM support,
    >then maybe it was unique to your situation and use of the product.
    >
    >
    >
    Just ask anybody about their crashes. What nonsense. Most systems crash
    for the same reason most cars crash ... bad drivers.

    But I'd stay away from promoting DB2 on Windows. I can't think of much
    worse than a database with almost no built-in security on an operating
    system with ... well ... almost no built-in security. Oracle and
    Informix are far better choices if security is a concern.

    --
    Daniel Morgan
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp[/url]
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp[/url]
    [email]damorganx.washington.edu[/email]
    (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)


    Daniel Morgan Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Mark A wrote:
    >>Friends!
    >>
    >>I am not anti DB2. It is a good
    >>database on Main Frames system.
    >>
    >>System crash, if it has not happened on your
    >>production server running DB2 so far, please
    >>wait for 6-8 months.
    >>
    >>
    >>Peter
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2 because
    >it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle jobs
    >in the marketplace. All systems have problems occasionally, just ask Ebay
    >about their outages caused by Oracle crashes and hangs.
    >
    >If you personally had problems that could not be resolved with IBM support,
    >then maybe it was unique to your situation and use of the product.
    >
    >
    >
    Just ask anybody about their crashes. What nonsense. Most systems crash
    for the same reason most cars crash ... bad drivers.

    But I'd stay away from promoting DB2 on Windows. I can't think of much
    worse than a database with almost no built-in security on an operating
    system with ... well ... almost no built-in security. Oracle and
    Informix are far better choices if security is a concern.

    --
    Daniel Morgan
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp[/url]
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp[/url]
    [email]damorganx.washington.edu[/email]
    (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)


    Daniel Morgan Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Mark A wrote:
    > <snipped>
    >
    >DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2 because
    >it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle jobs
    >in the marketplace.
    >
    ><snipped>
    >
    >
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of security without Tivoli or other
    similar products?
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of training classes?
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of books?
    Couldn't possibly be the fact that you need a C compiler on a production
    box?
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of third-party tools and applications?
    Couldn't possibly be ....

    And this from someone with 10+ years of DB2.

    In short ... there are plenty of reasons why someone might not like DB2.
    Which does not mean I am one of them. But rather to try to pin it on
    DBAs is a bit of a f. Oracle, itself, is currently redesigning the
    DBA's roles and responsibilities to be less RDBMS management and more
    and more integration with application servers and other components. The
    idea that Oracle is hard to manage is just a repetition of mythology: It
    is no longer true. Just as many things about DB2 that were true five
    years ago are no longer true.

    --
    Daniel Morgan
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp[/url]
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp[/url]
    [email]damorganx.washington.edu[/email]
    (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

    Daniel Morgan Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    Mark A wrote:
    > <snipped>
    >
    >DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2 because
    >it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle jobs
    >in the marketplace.
    >
    ><snipped>
    >
    >
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of security without Tivoli or other
    similar products?
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of training classes?
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of books?
    Couldn't possibly be the fact that you need a C compiler on a production
    box?
    Couldn't possibly be the lack of third-party tools and applications?
    Couldn't possibly be ....

    And this from someone with 10+ years of DB2.

    In short ... there are plenty of reasons why someone might not like DB2.
    Which does not mean I am one of them. But rather to try to pin it on
    DBAs is a bit of a f. Oracle, itself, is currently redesigning the
    DBA's roles and responsibilities to be less RDBMS management and more
    and more integration with application servers and other components. The
    idea that Oracle is hard to manage is just a repetition of mythology: It
    is no longer true. Just as many things about DB2 that were true five
    years ago are no longer true.

    --
    Daniel Morgan
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp[/url]
    [url]http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp[/url]
    [email]damorganx.washington.edu[/email]
    (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

    Daniel Morgan Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    > >DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2
    because
    > >it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle
    jobs
    > >in the marketplace.
    > >
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of security without Tivoli or other
    > similar products?
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of training classes?
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of books?
    > Couldn't possibly be the fact that you need a C compiler on a production
    > box?
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of third-party tools and applications?
    > Couldn't possibly be ....
    >
    > And this from someone with 10+ years of DB2.
    >
    > In short ... there are plenty of reasons why someone might not like DB2.
    > Which does not mean I am one of them. But rather to try to pin it on
    > DBAs is a bit of a f. Oracle, itself, is currently redesigning the
    > DBA's roles and responsibilities to be less RDBMS management and more
    > and more integration with application servers and other components. The
    > idea that Oracle is hard to manage is just a repetition of mythology: It
    > is no longer true. Just as many things about DB2 that were true five
    > years ago are no longer true.
    >
    > --
    > Daniel Morgan
    Those might be good reasons (if they were all true, but I don't agree that
    they are) for a manager to make that decision in favor of one product over
    another. But 90% of DBA's only care about the state of the job market and
    how their skills match up to that market.



    Mark A Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

    > >DB2 is good on Unix, Linux, and Windows also. DBA's don't like DB2
    because
    > >it takes fewer of them to operate and they think there are more Oracle
    jobs
    > >in the marketplace.
    > >
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of security without Tivoli or other
    > similar products?
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of training classes?
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of books?
    > Couldn't possibly be the fact that you need a C compiler on a production
    > box?
    > Couldn't possibly be the lack of third-party tools and applications?
    > Couldn't possibly be ....
    >
    > And this from someone with 10+ years of DB2.
    >
    > In short ... there are plenty of reasons why someone might not like DB2.
    > Which does not mean I am one of them. But rather to try to pin it on
    > DBAs is a bit of a f. Oracle, itself, is currently redesigning the
    > DBA's roles and responsibilities to be less RDBMS management and more
    > and more integration with application servers and other components. The
    > idea that Oracle is hard to manage is just a repetition of mythology: It
    > is no longer true. Just as many things about DB2 that were true five
    > years ago are no longer true.
    >
    > --
    > Daniel Morgan
    Those might be good reasons (if they were all true, but I don't agree that
    they are) for a manager to make that decision in favor of one product over
    another. But 90% of DBA's only care about the state of the job market and
    how their skills match up to that market.



    Mark A Guest

Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 21st, 07:50 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 13th, 03:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139