Re: tough choices

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1087748956.675560_at_yasure...
> > First, Oracle is more expensive than DB2.
>
> I am having a hard time believing that based on the pricing I've seen.
> Do you have any actual quotes on equivalent systems, priced within the
> last year, that support this contention?
>
> What I mean by equivalent systems is that you include ALL costs. Not
> just the base database.
>
> Because every time I have done the pricing DB2 has been more expensive.
>
> --
> Daniel Morgan

I have a hard time believing you are objective.

You continuously are confusing 2 things (similar to the way you confused share-everything with share-nothing):

• multiple node parallel database
• multiple nodes for failover capability for continuous operation

Granted that Oracle is ahead of DB2 in the second of these (failover), although some important enhancement in the next DB2 release will address some of these issues.

But not everyone needs sub-second failover. Given today's hot swap RAID-5 and dual power supply systems, node failures are very unlikely. The vast majority of large parallel systems are used for decision support where sub-second failover is not a requirement.

But linear scalability, total cost of ownership, and ease of use are important, and that is why is DB2 ESE with DPF is one of the best parallel solutions on the market. Received on Sun Jun 20 2004 - 15:14:53 CDT