Professional Web Applications Themes

SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases. - Microsoft SQL / MS SQL Server

Hi folks, I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances, and easier to ...

  1. #1

    Default SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    Hi folks,


    I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
    using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
    maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
    convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
    that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
    end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
    too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
    information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
    long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
    and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
    VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
    can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
    effective and productive over DB2 please share that
    information with me or point me to web site that has such
    info. Thanks in advance.

    Have a good Holidays.

    Lam Nguyen Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    if you take a look at TPC.ORG, SQL Server is an obvious leader in
    price/performance.

    (The new DB2 TPC_C benchmark not withstanding, that one looks fishy to me
    same machine as may but much faster, what's up with that?)

    "Lam Nguyen" <Nguyen.Lamaaa-calif.com> wrote in message
    news:09df01c3419d$47a34860$a001280aphx.gbl...
    > Hi folks,
    >
    >
    > I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
    > using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
    > maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
    > convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
    > that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
    > end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
    > too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
    > information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
    > long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
    > and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
    > VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
    > can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
    > effective and productive over DB2 please share that
    > information with me or point me to web site that has such
    > info. Thanks in advance.
    >
    > Have a good Holidays.
    >

    Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    The Microsoft point of view:

    [url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/default.asp[/url]

    In my opinion the main reason to stay with SQL Server is that it is cheaper
    to stick with whatever product you are using. The hidden costs in lower
    developer and administrator productivity (because they have to learn all
    those nasty little details of the new product) can be horrendous. This is in
    no way biased to SQL Server, if the situation was the other way around I
    would have advised you to stick with DB2.

    But then, those are hidden costs, license costs are highly visible and your
    CIO probably got a couple of nice pens from IBM ;-)

    oh, and make sure that there is a nice fat training budget to train the team
    in DB2. Probably hasn't been included in the calculations that have been
    made so far.


    "Lam Nguyen" <Nguyen.Lamaaa-calif.com> wrote in message
    news:09df01c3419d$47a34860$a001280aphx.gbl...
    > Hi folks,
    >
    >
    > I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
    > using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
    > maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
    > convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
    > that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
    > end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
    > too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
    > information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
    > long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
    > and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
    > VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
    > can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
    > effective and productive over DB2 please share that
    > information with me or point me to web site that has such
    > info. Thanks in advance.
    >
    > Have a good Holidays.
    >

    Jacco Schalkwijk Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    >Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
    >too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2.
    If they really knew that,
    and it really "cost too much"
    wouldn't they make the decission to switch
    without "we" ever getting to say anything?
    But hey, for all I know, they have money to burn
    and don't mind spending it to get
    whatever tools "we" would prefer to work with.
    But how could that be the case given
    they are the ones who said, "cost too much"?

    How about starting by asking them for
    a copies/references to the information
    upon which their claim is made?
    (Along with explains of how they interpreted the information.)

    Don't be surprise if a review leads you to the determination
    that their "claim" is not a real claim;
    but rather, a reaction to licensesing policies.
    So perhaps it would serve your purpose to
    point out that licensesing fees are only part
    of the total cost. And help them understanding
    the magnitude of the cost to retool, retrain, rtc.
    (Of course you are already here.)

    Be alert,
    because both options might cost too much for them.

    Bye,
    Delbert Glass

    "Lam Nguyen" <Nguyen.Lamaaa-calif.com> wrote in message
    news:09df01c3419d$47a34860$a001280aphx.gbl...
    > Hi folks,
    >
    >
    > I need your help on find articles or magazines that proven
    > using SQL Server2000 is more cost effecitve and easier to
    > maintenance than DB2 databases. My company thinking to
    > convert all SQL Server to DB2 databases and we all oppose
    > that decision. We are using VB.Net and ASP.net as front
    > end. Our CIO and managements teams claim that it's cost
    > too much to use SQL Server vs. DB2. I am try to collect
    > information to show them that if we using SQL Server in a
    > long run will paid off in terms of costs, maintenances,
    > and easier to do trouble shoot because we still using
    > VB.Net and ASP.net as our front end. If you known where I
    > can find the information that using SQL Server more cost
    > effective and productive over DB2 please share that
    > information with me or point me to web site that has such
    > info. Thanks in advance.
    >
    > Have a good Holidays.
    >

    Delbert Glass Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    >
    > Be alert,
    > because both options might cost too much for them.
    >
    > Bye,
    > Delbert Glass
    Be alert. We need more lerts.

    Seriously, management doesn't always like their assumptions contradicted.
    This is an excellent opportunity to practice communication (and survival)
    skills.


    Bob Castleman Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.


    "Bob Castleman" <nomailhere> wrote in message
    news:ecbw7laQDHA.2480tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >Seriously, management doesn't always like their assumptions contradicted.
    That's mostly because the manager is aware
    he should be fired for making assumptions
    whenever he is being paid
    to make informed business decisions.

    The situation gets to be rather ackward.

    If you say something you get fired.

    If you don't say something you are likely to get fired,
    so he can hire someone else who is "familar" with the new tool
    under the assumptions/brags he is avoiding training cost
    and is doing such a good of job doing his job
    since he is doing a lot of "matching" the personal to the "job".
    Even braging he has reduced the payroll.
    Appearately, under the assumptions that tool=job
    and payroll=total_cost_of_personel.
    (As you mentioned management is not going to like
    anyone contradicting the assumptions. For example
    by mentioning other cost of personel such as training.)
    Yet, an informed decision would have acknowledged
    there is training cost whether they kept you or replaced you.
    Furthermore often the person hired,
    based almostly solely on the fact that
    they have previously (elsewhere) touch the new tool,
    is a person that needs a lot of training.
    Thereafter, any of the guys who didn't get replaced start wondering
    if the guys who did get replaced were the lucky ones.
    Even more so as they see guy after guy
    excercise the survival skill: exit the area.

    Even if you get to continue to not say something
    for the maximium amount of time,
    good money gets spent after bad money
    until the company goes out of business;
    rather than, corrective action taken
    since that is dangeriously close to
    admitting a bad decision was made.
    Ponder, ultimately which decision was the first bad decision.
    >This is an excellent opportunity to practice
    >communication (and survival) skills.
    Oops, you forget something:
    Management doesn't always like that.

    In which case, it's all the more important
    to be practicing those skills in the bigger picture too
    not just in the small picture alone.

    Bye,
    Delbert Glass


    Delbert Glass Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.


    "Bob Castleman" <nomailhere> wrote in message
    news:ecbw7laQDHA.2480tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >Seriously, management doesn't always like their assumptions contradicted.
    That's mostly because the manager is aware
    he should be fired for making assumptions
    whenever he is being paid
    to make informed business decisions.

    The situation gets to be rather ackward.

    If you say something you get fired.

    If you don't say something you are likely to get fired,
    so he can hire someone else who is "familar" with the new tool
    under the assumptions/brags he is avoiding training cost
    and is doing such a good of job doing his job
    since he is doing a lot of "matching" the personal to the "job".
    Even braging he has reduced the payroll.
    Appearately, under the assumptions that tool=job
    and payroll=total_cost_of_personel.
    (As you mentioned management is not going to like
    anyone contradicting the assumptions. For example
    by mentioning other cost of personel such as training.)
    Yet, an informed decision would have acknowledged
    there is training cost whether they kept you or replaced you.
    Furthermore often the person hired,
    based almostly solely on the fact that
    they have previously (elsewhere) touch the new tool,
    is a person that needs a lot of training.
    Thereafter, any of the guys who didn't get replaced start wondering
    if the guys who did get replaced were the lucky ones.
    Even more so as they see guy after guy
    excercise the survival skill: exit the area.

    Even if you get to continue to not say something
    for the maximium amount of time,
    good money gets spent after bad money
    until the company goes out of business;
    rather than, corrective action taken
    since that is dangeriously close to
    admitting a bad decision was made.
    Ponder, ultimately which decision was the first bad decision.
    >This is an excellent opportunity to practice
    >communication (and survival) skills.
    Oops, you forget something:
    Management doesn't always like that.

    In which case, it's all the more important
    to be practicing those skills in the bigger picture too
    not just in the small picture alone.

    Bye,
    Delbert Glass



    Delbert Glass Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.


    Nguyen,
    COnsdiering your situation, I have a good recommendation for you. Sicne
    you do not know DB2, this is a opportunity for you learn DB2. Does you
    company pay overtime?
    Once you get DB2, you have to reorg DB often which takes time for the
    DBA . Once the company pay opvertime for the reorg work, CFO will feel
    the pinch.
    in any case it is good for you . Hence go for it rather than object.




    *** Sent via Developersdex [url]http://www.developersdex.com[/url] ***
    Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
    param T Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.


    "Bob Castleman" <nomailhere> wrote in message
    news:ecbw7laQDHA.2480tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Be alert. We need more lerts.
    Who are alert that lerts can alert!

    Bye,
    Delbert Glass


    Delbert Glass Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    Luckily the description is not of my current situation.

    It sounds like you've never heard of the "importance"
    of touching the new tool elsewhere.

    It happens even when the existing guy has some familiarity with the new
    tool.
    Even happens when the existing guy has touch the new tool at the company.
    It even happens when the existing guy has much experience and ability
    in the domain of the new tool, say database-ing and programming.
    Not to mention his familarity with company specify information, practices,
    etc.

    Yet he gets replaced by a new guy whose basic sole contribution
    (You should ask,"Contribution to who's objective?")
    is that his resume says he touch the new tool
    at someother company (ie elsewhere). This includes when the new
    guy not only has very little knowledge of how to use the new tool at all
    (including even when it's far less knowledge then the existing guy has)
    but also has little grasp for what the tools is even for
    nor any grasp for the domain at all.
    It shouldn't take much wondering to figure out a likely reason
    why that new guy was available for hire even if he was still
    employeed elsewhere.

    Jeepers, somethimes the existing guy ends up setting
    everything up in the new tool and teaching the new guy
    how to do at least a few things before he has to depart.

    Bye,
    Delbert Glass


    Delbert Glass Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: SQL Server 2000 vs. DB2 databases.

    I would think you CIO knows a thing about IBM Syetem i / iSeries/as-400/, or whatever interation that DB2 resides on. Unlike Microsoft, I have never heard of an IBM midrange system getting HACKED, or getting a VIRUS. DB2 is rock solid, and is based on standard SQL. I can't knock SQL Server or Oracle, in and of themselves, but with DB2 you get away from one of the most Mickey Mouse operating systems ever created - Microsoft.
    Unregistered Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 28th, 10:01 PM
  2. Two Websites/Two Databases One Server
    By Parrothead46038 in forum Coldfusion Database Access
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 11th, 02:08 PM
  3. Access 2000 or SQL Server 2000
    By Denis in forum ASP Database
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 25th, 03:38 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 5th, 08:55 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 5th, 01:50 PM

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