Re: Convert SAP Oracle Database to IBM DB2 Database??

From: Noons <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Feb 8, 2:04 pm, Serge Rielau <> wrote:

> It does? Where does it say that it is measuring application dialog CPU use?

section 6.4 and 6.5. The name of section 6.5 is precisely:
Dialog Response Times, flowing from a
transaction measure.

As such, why are you asking me instead of reading like I asked you to do?

> It's measuring three values:
> CPU time
> Which consistently is SERVER.

NO. NOWHERE does it say it is the
DB server CU that is beibg measured. In fact, it very clearly in section 6.4 says it's the application CPU usage!

WTH has that got to do with db2 compression?

> While that is not spelled out explicitly all of section 6.3 is pretty
> clear about it.
> Response Time

of WHAT?
By itself, that means exactly jack and you know it.

> Wall clock time consumed on the server
> (I hope you take no issue with CPU time > Wall clock time)

What I have issue with is the word "server" used to describe CPU time in a multi-tier system:

WHICH damn server?

> I agree. But what substantiates your claim that this is what it says?

I dunno, maybe the words:
"The values were taken from transaction ST06"? Is that a new function in db2 or is that, like I said, app server code?

BTW, what substantiates yours that it isn't?

> It is unfortunate that the paper assumed a reader who doesn't actually
> try to misunderstand the obvious definition for the purpose of
> discrediting it.

It is most unfortunate that once again IBM marketing has produced a paper that would cause a group of unbiased professional engineers to convulse with laughter.

When one publishes a performance paper,
one DEFINES the baseline that is being
measured and its location. That has not been done here.

> By CPU Usage SAP?

By CPU usage of ST06, for example.
Is that now part of DB2 as well?

No, it isn't. Therefore, it is the
CPU usage of SAP.


> Please, perhaps my English is really bad.. point to your source so I can
> learn. Don't leave me ignorant.

Basic high school would do for a start.

> Teh server side CPU changes, yes. No claims made on the app.

Yes, claims made on the app. Read the
darn paper, instead of imagining what
it should say!

> I took the liberty of checking out the author.
> Just as the keyword "PRODUCTION" in the title might suggest he is indeed
> a DBA.
> This is "his" system. Note that he is looking at long term results, not
> some 3 hours run. The graph itself covers a month.

Yeah, sure.

And whoever in IBM marketing chose to carry this didn't even do the most basic of checks.


1- Is the paper using a credible methodology? 2- Is the paper providing results that can be reproduced in other cases?
3- Does the paper clearly identify what is the subject being measured?

This one fails on all three basic counts.

Looks like in the usual Feb-March marketing rush to "prove" that db2 is ahead of Oracle (must be reckoning time again, eh?)
someone forgot that IBM's motto is

THINK, not
... Received on Sun Feb 10 2008 - 06:05:35 CST

Original text of this message