Re: Why doesn't Oracle care about Linux as IBM does?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:07:31 -0400, Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote:

>DB2 on Distributed Platforms and DB2 for OS/390 are different codebases.
>I'm not aware of anyone attempting to hide that fact.

Good. I just wish IBM mktg stopped telling people they are one and the same product "providing scalability from the Palm all the way to the 3090" (or whatever they're called nowadays). They aren't. I read the books too, enough to figure out where the diffs are and where the "scalability" may fail. Let's not go into that. You see, I work daily with ex-DB2 mainframers converted to the NT/Unix and ORACLE environment. I see every-single-day their mouths open at what they can do now. Bugger, eh?

>
>DB2 does not require special clustering software which is why it does not have
>the problems you refer to on XP and 2000 (See the famous TPC-C result Larry loves
>to cite running 32 physical nodes on W2k).

Serge, stay with me here, OK? Cluster support on XP and 2K is if anything a very strong selling point. It allows people to have server farms to provide cost-efficient scalability. Nothing new there, except it might actually work this time. Compaq is turning out to be a very good example.
A database that claims to be compatible with this environment should at the very least *attempt* to run well using its features? Or are we claiming "only VSAM ported to NT can be efficient"?

>
>Requiring clustering software puts limits on scalability:
>Except for AIX HACMP which supports 32nodes, typically only between 4 and 8
>nodes are supported today on the common platforms (Linux, Sun, HP, Windows).

I think you'll find with 2K and XP that will most definitely not be the case. And none of them will require the extra overhead of HACMP to make it work. At least not with ORACLE.

BTW, has the cost of buying, installing and setting up HACMP - and all the paraphernalia that goes with it - been taken into account in the famous "TCO"? NT and AIX? Or has it somehow slipped between the accounting cracks? Let's not even talk about the cost of *finding* people adequately trained to run it...

And who says "clustering software puts limits on scalability"? Only IBM could come up with that one. Care to *test* that assertion in one of the M$ newsgroups? Better yet, run it by some of the ex-DEC people at Compaq. I'd be particularly interested in hearing your results! <G>

Look, each product has its benefits. For some people, UDB or DB2 or whatever you folks want to call it may be just the ticket. For others ORACLE is indispensable. It's all a matter of horses for courses.

All this rattling-on from IBM about how "much more pure DB2s air is" stinks to high heaven. What happened with you folks? Someone went on a poaching expedition to M$'s marketing dept? "Can't beat them, let's join them"? What's going on?

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam Received on Tue Aug 14 2001 - 04:48:32 CDT