No future for DB2

[rkusenet]

This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp

[Buck Nuggets]

DA Morgan wrote:

Buck Nuggets wrote:

db2 has less moving parts to worry about

Oracle has one ... RMAN ... how many less does DB2 have?

Hmm, most databases I've worked with don't require an entire subsystem
to make restoration humanly possible. Granted - oracle gives a vast
variety of restoration options, still - most databases don't need
entire manuals on just backup & recovery: just a single chapter in a
book. A chapter that a junior dba can easily master, and can be
expected to perform correctly in a pinch.

And rman doesn't insulate the dba from all of the complexity of error
stacks, scns, resetlog/incomplete recovery complexities, etc. Nor does
a GUI & responsitory-based approach beat a simple text backup command
without bringing up a variety of other challenges. In the management
of remote databases over various line speeds, GUIs leave a lot to be
desired. In the reliable and mature management of any software, the
ideal process involves the use software configuration management
practices & tools (cvs, etc), testing of the process in a test
environment and checkout to production. Not, a manual reentry of data
into a production repository.

So yeah, RMAN is great, and I won't hesitate to use it on my next
oracle project. But it's only great compared to the oracle
alternatives. Which is a problem that appears peculiar to oracle.

[Noons]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

Hmm, most databases I've worked with don't require an entire subsystem
to make restoration humanly possible. Granted - oracle gives a vast
variety of restoration options, still - most databases don't need
entire manuals on just backup & recovery: just a single chapter in a
book. A chapter that a junior dba can easily master, and can be
expected to perform correctly in a pinch.
Very good point, in fact.
One might of course also deduct that most other databases gloss
over the multiple possibilities and combinations of recovery.
One size fits all comes to mind. With the obvious consequences
in downtimes.

Having said that, I'm the first to agree: Oracle recovery is a
tad too far optioned and it can be very confusing. I'd like to
see a much simpler approach for the Standard Edition of the
software and yes of course, a "full blown all bells and whistles"
for the Enterprise Edition.
oracle project. But it's only great compared to the oracle
alternatives. Which is a problem that appears peculiar to oracle.

I assume you mean "the alternatives within oracle"? ;)
Well, having been on the receiving end of recovering SS and udb
databases in Windoze, all I can say is without RMAN I don't see
Oracle as that much different from the others:

"Cleanup remnants, restore from backup, restart in maintenance
mode, apply logs, reopen for general access."

Exactly what is soooo complex about that? Or soooo diferent
from what everyone does?

Ah!: you mean what to do if you do NOT want to wait for a
complete restore of ALL database files?

Well, asking how to do that in udb and SS would be a good
starting point. Instead of blaming Oracle for being able to,
with/without RMAN...

[DA Morgan]

Larry wrote:

Between the mainframe and Linux/UNIX/Windows Daniel?

Larry E.

DA Morgan wrote:

Larry wrote:

That's not the point. One of your complaints about DB2 was that
Replication costs $. It doesn't ... only on z/OS and i-series. So
does Oracle apparently.

Larry E.

1. Please don't top post
2. So does Oracle apparently what?

Charge for replication services? No.

1. Please don't top post.
2. Between any Oracle implementation on any operating system on any
platform.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Madison Pruet wrote:

I didn't know that Oracle replication was available on the standard edition.
I thought that it was only available on the enterprise edition. Am I
mistaken?

1. Please don't top post.
2. You are correct.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

bka wrote:

Replicaton to/from Oracle has nothing do with Enterprise and/or
standard edition - to replicate to Oracle or SQL Server, you need IBM
Information Integator.

I understand that runs really well on the Mac OSX/Darwin platform. ;-)
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Noons]

bka wrote:

this thread is cross posted to:
comp.databases. ibm-db2,comp.databa ses.informix,co mp.databases.or acle.server
you see, this is where your totaly moronic argumentation
fails. First you complain about:

"the 1530 people who posted something about tpc in comp.databases: "

Now, you claim it's not comp.databases but it's the ones above.
As if: you can read, no one else can, and they are all one
and the same. It shows your total ignorance about the Usenet
that you consider comp.databases the same as the above...

What can I say? You change the contents of your arguments at will,
"adapt" your replies to the whim of the moment, and then "complain
to mommy" you get treated like you deserve?
but I do apologize for using the acronym tpc, which launched you into
and totally out of the context of the thread. You just wanted to
bring in what you thought was a "winning argument". It isn't. No
one outside of your little circle of friends CARES a toss about tpc.
your foaming at the mouth tirade and elicited the very adult phrases
"Stuff them", "wanker", "WTF", and "bullshit".
In kind. That's how much contempt I have tpc in, and their followers.
And I'm FAR from being the only person thinking that way.
Isn't it finally clear?
thread to such a childish level with such disturbing opinions. i know
you'll do your best to keep it professional and respectful - your
posting history speaks for itself, and says volumes about your
circumspection, and why your opinions in this forum are valued as much
as they are worth.

Depends. If you like to hear the "approved" opinion and toe
company lines, then you are going to be very unhappy on the
Usenet. I do strongly suggest you grow a thick skin.

And here is another clarification: I don't give a rat's arse
what you or anyone else on the above groups or the Usenet think
of you, me or anyone else. And if you don't like that you can
go suck an egg. Because sure as heck I'm not gonna change one
smidgeon for your benefit.

And now, get lost.

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

Buck Nuggets wrote:

db2 has less moving parts to worry about

Oracle has one ... RMAN ... how many less does DB2 have?

Hmm, most databases I've worked with don't require an entire subsystem
to make restoration humanly possible. Granted - oracle gives a vast
variety of restoration options, still - most databases don't need
entire manuals on just backup & recovery: just a single chapter in a
book. A chapter that a junior dba can easily master, and can be
expected to perform correctly in a pinch.

On the other hand RMAN allows almost instantaneous replacement of a
single damaged block in a multi-terabyte datafile. You can hav a
choice ... you can have simple and be off-line for hours ... or you
can have a tool included in your license that gets you back on-line
before the CTO can call to complain.

Anyone incapable of using RMAN shouldn't be allowed to touch a keyboard
or to operate a radio.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Noons]

DA Morgan wrote:

Madison Pruet wrote:

I didn't know that Oracle replication was available on the standard edition.
I thought that it was only available on the enterprise edition. Am I
mistaken?

1. Please don't top post.
2. You are correct.

He's correct in that he's mistaken. Snapshot replication
(basic replication) *is* available in Standard Edition, 9i.
Advanced replication (master2master) is only in EE.
10g might have changed that, but that will be another
reason for people not to upgrade...

[Noons]

DA Morgan wrote:

All joking aside ...
how many people do you know in IT today that can't, given a single
first-normal form table, convert it to 2NF, 3NF, etc.
All joking aside? I can count on two hands people in my previous
job who were familiar with NF. Certainly in the upper management
spheres there were simply none. And that was an IT organization,
IBM var and all that jazz.

Ah yes: they all vented as if they knew a lot about it. Then a
coupla pointed questions later they'd be changing subjects vvf...
More on this later and hopefully something about the American College
of Database Professionals: An organization in its formative stages and
modeled after other professional organizations such as www.facs.org.

Careful with that stuff: an organisation imposed from the "top down"
instead of being discussed and accepted by the people in the profession

is going to go the same way as the Oracle "certifications ":
right next to the dodo.

Enough of vendor-sponsored "certifying " orgs already....

[Paul]

"Chris \( Val \)" <ch******@bigpo nd.com.au> wrote:

http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
I'm sure that I've actually seen some of these in job ads!
Brillo!

Paul...

Chris Val

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.1.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.