tough choices

[Sy Borg]

Hello:
We are designing two multi-user client server applications that
performs large number of transactions on database servers. On an
average Application A has a 50% mix of select and update/insert/delete
statements and application B has 80-20 mix of select and
update/insert/delete statements. Being able to scale the databases as
needed so the performance is unaffected, is one of our critical
requirements. We've been investigating Oracle 10g RAC and DB2 ESE as
alternatives and in both cases unfortunately, we get a lot more
marketing spin than real answers. I've looked through some of the
newsgroup postings on oracle and ibm's websites and most of the
discussions seem to be about high availability(and technology
evangelism). The information we've gathered so far seems to point to:

1. The critical factor (and possibly the bottleneck) for Oracle's RAC
performance is the network and the storage access speed- if the
network does not have ample unused bandwidth or the rate at which
storage can be accessed by various nodes has reached the point of
diminishing returns - we won't get any additional performance by
simply increasing the number of nodes. Also, the application that
performs more writes will hugely increase the network traffic because
of synchronization requirements.

2. DB2 can deliver better performance but only if the data that is
accessed together is physically laid out together and the application
has knowledge of the physical data layout (so it can connect to the
right node in the cluster ). However, if, we separate the application
logic from physical layout of the data the performance will be
unpredictable.

All this is just hypotheses - if anyone has some real world experience
with these two offerings and can offer an objective opinion - we'd
really appreciate it.

[Mark A]

"Sy Borg" <bo*********@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:b2*************************@posting.google.co m...

Thanks very much everyone. This has been very helpful to us. We have
realized very quickly that we were going down the wrong path in trying
to figure out the right database for our customers upfront. Our client
apps work with the databases via genreic dbms connectivity apis and
sql and, we can easily allow our apps to pick either one of the
datasources (don't mind the extra development effort on the oracle and
db2 sql).
The ultimate choice of the DBMS platform will perhaps be best made by
our customers (who will have a much better understanding of their dbms
TCO based on existing infrastructure).

~Sy

Good idea. There is not as much difference between the major DBMS products
as the vendors would like you to believe. Stick to standard SQL and keep
away from the proprietary extensions.

[Mark Townsend]

Mark A wrote:

<snip>

since both DB2 for z/OS and Oracle only support share-everything
parallelism, that is what they both have range partitioning instead of hash
partitioning (hash partitioning is designed to split the load evenly across
all partitions).

Oracle also has hash partitioning, for the same reasons. Oracle also has
list partitioning, and indeed range-hash and list-hash.
Having actually worked on such applications, I can say that it can be done
quite well with DB2 UNION ALL views. If Oracle is slightly better in that
respect with range partitioning, then fine. I don't think it is deal
breaker. The use of range partitioning comes at a big cost, especially when
trying to balance a load across multiple partitions for true parallel
operations that are scalable. With range partitioning, one gets a lot of hot
spots on a particular partition (which is usually the most current monthly
or yearly data).

And hence the support in Oracle for hash, and even better, range-hash.
Do you actually know much about Oracle's partitioning - it sounds like
you think Oracle does what DB2 OS/390 does. In fact, Oracle's
partitioning capabilities are more like what is in Informix XPS.

[Howard J. Rogers]

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40**************@comcast.net...

Mark A wrote:

<snip>

since both DB2 for z/OS and Oracle only support share-everything
parallelism, that is what they both have range partitioning instead of hash partitioning (hash partitioning is designed to split the load evenly across all partitions).

Oracle also has hash partitioning, for the same reasons. Oracle also has
list partitioning, and indeed range-hash and list-hash.

Minor point, but actually Oracle 9i has range-list and range-hash composite
partitioning, but not list-hash.

Regards
HJR

[Mark A]

> > Oracle also has hash partitioning, for the same reasons. Oracle also has

list partitioning, and indeed range-hash and list-hash.
Minor point, but actually Oracle 9i has range-list and range-hash

composite partitioning, but not list-hash.

Regards
HJR

Careful, you are talking to an Oracle marketing rep.

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Yes DPF is an additional cost on top of the ESE license. Even so, it is less
expensive than an equivalent Oracle system.

More or less no disagreements right up to here. A few nits to pick but
they can wait. But how can an additional cost be less expensive than
included in the standard edition license?

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Serge Rielau wrote:

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Mark A wrote:

Please correct me if you think I am incorrect. But losing a single node
with RAC can not deprive users of access to data. The system continues
to run with no effect other than the loss of a few CPU's and their
associated RAM.

With DB2 I could lose a node and either lose access to some of the data
or, worst case, lose the entire database application.
Daniel, you are still measures with two metrics :-)
When an Oracle RAC node goes down it has information that is needed by
the other nodes. All the remaining nodes are affected by that during
this timeframe where RAC gets its balance back.
Which is sub-second. So what's the point?
I take your word, that this is in the second ballpark.
Sub-second in my lab. And I'm not even using fast equipment like fiber.
Now in a DB2 + DPF scenario, if DB Partition goes down all clients
connected to that partition get kicked.
Which it would seem to me is a substantial consideration.
All other clients will not get kicked and they may or may not feel that
a partition went down, depending on whether the downed partition is
needed or not.
And what are the chances that it might be needed unless you hand coded
for a specific number of partitions and distribution of data which would
send you back to your source code everytime you added or removed a node.

Do you mean loose the database permanently or just until a fallover
can be
accomplished or the hardware repaired? I don't know of a situation where
data would be lost permanently unless there was a multiple disk failure
affecting both the data and logs.

I meant only until it is brought back on-line. DB2 is far more robust to
become ashes ... just toast. ;-)

Right, so now the question is the race against time to get the down
partition up again. On the same hardware, different hardware, doesn't
matter.

Except that with RAC the SA and DBA could just ignore it until the
following morning as no loss of service is involved.
Just to wrap up:
The point being made is:
1. DB2 + DPF for near unlimited scale out
(DB2 supports 999 DB Partitions,
there >100 partition installation out there)
2. DB2 + DPF _supports_ HA solutions if needed
3. DB2 + DPF is not an HA feature and never was meant to be one.
Thanks.
My personal toughts on RAC are:
Oracle RAC is an HA feature with neat limited scale out ability
Oracle RAC has yet to proof how far it can scale out.
64 nodes with 9i and 128 nodes with 10g is the largest of which I am
personally aware.
I don't believe that near linear scale out can be achieved without a
divide and conquer strategy of sorts. That strategy requires schema/app
changes.
I do ... but then I've been working with it.

Cheers
Serge

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark A]

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1087744953.74103@yasure...

Mark A wrote:

Yes DPF is an additional cost on top of the ESE license. Even so, it is less expensive than an equivalent Oracle system.

More or less no disagreements right up to here. A few nits to pick but
they can wait. But how can an additional cost be less expensive than
included in the standard edition license?

--
Daniel Morgan

First, Oracle is more expensive than DB2.

I believe that both DB2 and Oracle are usually priced by the number of CPU's
for parallel versions. I know I paid extra a few years ago for the parallel
version of Oracle over and above the standard version (but I don't remember
the details).

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1087744953.74103@yasure...

Mark A wrote:

Yes DPF is an additional cost on top of the ESE license. Even so, it is
less
expensive than an equivalent Oracle system.

More or less no disagreements right up to here. A few nits to pick but
they can wait. But how can an additional cost be less expensive than
included in the standard edition license?

--
Daniel Morgan

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
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark A]

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1087748956.675560@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.

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1087748956.675560@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.

Why do you think I have a lack of objectivity when you didn't respond to
the question I posed?

Here it is again in case you missed it:

Do you have any actual quotes on equivalent systems, priced within the
last year, that support this contention?

Do you have actual quotes to support your statement or are you just
making it all up because it is the answer you wish to be true?

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[datab0y]

Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1087748956.675560@yasure>...

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.

Really? How do you configure db2 to get it more expensive than
oracle? The only time db2 really seems to become expensive is when a
project specifies UDB ESE and should be using workgroup. Then you can
find folks spending $25k+ / CPU when they only really need about $7k+
/ CPU.

Man, I remember the bad old days of the oracle power unit - when a
theoretical 4x1000 mhz smp server could cost you $400,000! At the
time I was reselling oracle and our solutions were all twisted up by
the database licensing costs - which forced us to come up with ways to
use minimum licensing even if we wanted additional boxes, etc. At
that time the equiv db2 solution was something like $80,000. Of
course, I liked oracle 8i quite a bit more than db2 5-6. But now that
we're comparing db2 8 to oracle 9-10, it seems that db2's simplicity
and cost structure is giving it an edge on some projects.

I know oracle was forced to really drop its prices - probably due to
dot-com collapses, and competition from db2. Any chance that the
oracle folks would "meet or beat" db2 prices? Maybe that's a good
strategy to get better pricing on my oracle projects?

Also - think we're going to see database prices continually dropping
now? I'm seeing a heck of a lot of projects shifting from oracle &
db2 to mysql & postrgesql. Now, the majority of these projects are
small & non-critical - but still, at the end of the day it has to be a
loss of revenue for the database players...

[Mark A]

> Why do you think I have a lack of objectivity when you didn't respond to

the question I posed?

Here it is again in case you missed it:

>>Do you have any actual quotes on equivalent systems, priced within the
>>last year, that support this contention?

Do you have actual quotes to support your statement or are you just
making it all up because it is the answer you wish to be true?

Daniel Morgan

Daniel, I have not purchased any licenses of Oracle in the last year. In
general my previous experience has been that Oracle is definitely more
expensive than DB2, especially on UNIX platforms. Of course, in reaction to
their rapidly declining market share, Oracle may have slashed prices
recently.

But given your lack of knowledge about DB2 (for example, you thought DPF was
only available on UNIX), I don't really trust your ability to accurately
price a DB2 configuration.

I don't have any stake in which one is more expensive, so I don't have to
"wish" anything.

[Daniel Morgan]

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1087748956.675560@yasure>...

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.

Really? How do you configure db2 to get it more expensive than
oracle? The only time db2 really seems to become expensive is when a
project specifies UDB ESE and should be using workgroup. Then you can
find folks spending $25k+ / CPU when they only really need about $7k+
/ CPU.

Lets assume, as that is the subject of this thread, that they need
high security, range partitioning, high availability, and failover.
All things one would get in Oracle's EE? Lets further assume they need
an equivalent support agreement. Lets put both solutions on identical
hardware ... say Intel P4s with 4CPU and 8GB RAM with a NetApp 910
filer head and Linux EL AS 3 Update 2. And lets assume that the
application requires full text searches of documents such as PDFs. In
short ... the application I am pricing right now for a division of
a very large aerospace company. Can I do better with DB2?

If you think I can ... feel free to communicate that fact to a sales
rep. Because that is not consistent with the quotes I've received.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Why do you think I have a lack of objectivity when you didn't respond to
the question I posed?

Here it is again in case you missed it:

>>Do you have any actual quotes on equivalent systems, priced within the
>>last year, that support this contention?

Do you have actual quotes to support your statement or are you just
making it all up because it is the answer you wish to be true?

Daniel Morgan

Daniel, I have not purchased any licenses of Oracle in the last year. In
general my previous experience has been that Oracle is definitely more
expensive than DB2, especially on UNIX platforms. Of course, in reaction to
their rapidly declining market share, Oracle may have slashed prices
recently.

But given your lack of knowledge about DB2 (for example, you thought DPF was
only available on UNIX), I don't really trust your ability to accurately
price a DB2 configuration.

I don't have any stake in which one is more expensive, so I don't have to
"wish" anything.

And in the past I would have agreed with you: Not any more!

But I have written quotes on both current to within the last 60 days. So
I am not likely to be wrong. In fact I have it on good authority that
given a quote from IBM or Microsoft ... Oracle will match it or beat it.
I think like so much in this business ... the over-pricing of Oracle has
become mythology rather than reality.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark A]

> Lets assume, as that is the subject of this thread, that they need

high security, range partitioning, high availability, and failover.
All things one would get in Oracle's EE? Lets further assume they need
an equivalent support agreement. Lets put both solutions on identical
hardware ... say Intel P4s with 4CPU and 8GB RAM with a NetApp 910
filer head and Linux EL AS 3 Update 2. And lets assume that the
application requires full text searches of documents such as PDFs. In
short ... the application I am pricing right now for a division of
a very large aerospace company. Can I do better with DB2?

If you think I can ... feel free to communicate that fact to a sales
rep. Because that is not consistent with the quotes I've received.

--
Daniel Morgan

Since I am not an IBM marketing person, I cannot speak definitively on the
configuration pricing.

However, for range partitioning (UNION ALL VIEWS) neither DB2 ESE nor Data
Partitioning Feature is needed. DB2 Workgroup Server Edition (which includes
5 connections) or possibly the WSE Unlimited Edition (which charges for per
processor instead of number of connections) will work very well with
intra-partition parallelism using 4 CPU's on such a configuration.

The WSE can be deployed in Linux, UNIX, and Windows environments on systems
with up to 4 CPU's.

Again, I am not an IBM employee, but a search of the IBM site reveals that
DB2 UDB WORKGROUP SERVER EDITION SERVER LIC+SW MAINT 12 MO (D5B7FLL) for 5
users is $1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user.

Most middleware and web applications can be used in such a way that there a
very large number of simultaneous users, but only a limited number of DB2
connections being used at a given time.

However, if an unlimited number of DB2 connections is necessary, an
unlimited user license (Unlimited Edition) is available and the price is
based on number of CPU's. I don't have the price of that.

If any of the following complimentary products are needed I believe there
may be an extra charge.

Net Search Extender
DB2 Spatial Extender
Audio, Image, and Video Extenders
WebSphere MQ

[Mark A]

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1087793552.594682@yasure...

And in the past I would have agreed with you: Not any more!

But I have written quotes on both current to within the last 60 days. So
I am not likely to be wrong. In fact I have it on good authority that
given a quote from IBM or Microsoft ... Oracle will match it or beat it.
I think like so much in this business ... the over-pricing of Oracle has
become mythology rather than reality.

--
Daniel Morgan

As I stated, Oracle is loosing market share rapidly, especially on Windows,
so they are slashing prices. The only other explanation is that they are
really stupid to lower their prices so much (I don't think anyone would said
that Oracle execs are stupid).

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Lets assume, as that is the subject of this thread, that they need
high security, range partitioning, high availability, and failover.
All things one would get in Oracle's EE? Lets further assume they need
an equivalent support agreement. Lets put both solutions on identical
hardware ... say Intel P4s with 4CPU and 8GB RAM with a NetApp 910
filer head and Linux EL AS 3 Update 2. And lets assume that the
application requires full text searches of documents such as PDFs. In
short ... the application I am pricing right now for a division of
a very large aerospace company. Can I do better with DB2?

If you think I can ... feel free to communicate that fact to a sales
rep. Because that is not consistent with the quotes I've received.

--
Daniel Morgan

Since I am not an IBM marketing person, I cannot speak definitively on the
configuration pricing.

However, for range partitioning (UNION ALL VIEWS) neither DB2 ESE nor Data
Partitioning Feature is needed. DB2 Workgroup Server Edition (which includes
5 connections) or possibly the WSE Unlimited Edition (which charges for per
processor instead of number of connections) will work very well with
intra-partition parallelism using 4 CPU's on such a configuration.

The WSE can be deployed in Linux, UNIX, and Windows environments on systems
with up to 4 CPU's.

Again, I am not an IBM employee, but a search of the IBM site reveals that
DB2 UDB WORKGROUP SERVER EDITION SERVER LIC+SW MAINT 12 MO (D5B7FLL) for 5
users is $1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user.

Most middleware and web applications can be used in such a way that there a
very large number of simultaneous users, but only a limited number of DB2
connections being used at a given time.

However, if an unlimited number of DB2 connections is necessary, an
unlimited user license (Unlimited Edition) is available and the price is
based on number of CPU's. I don't have the price of that.

If any of the following complimentary products are needed I believe there
may be an extra charge.

Net Search Extender
DB2 Spatial Extender
Audio, Image, and Video Extenders
WebSphere MQ

Exactly my point. Pricing must be based upon equivalent capabilities.
Not some simplistic jingoism such as vendor A's EE edition vs. vendor
B's EE edition.

The only thing that matters is when specific specifications are put on
the table and two or more vendors are asked to submit written bids for
the business. And that is where mythology must give way to the facts.

We are here for technology ... not one of us, as far as I know, gets
even a dime in commission no matter who sells the most licenses next
quarter. I know I certainly don't so I don't care. Lets not make
statements about "more expensive" vs "less expensive" unless we are
willing to put both the system specifications and the vendor's written
quotes up for comparison. Both vendors are charging as much as they
think they can given market conditions. And not one penny less. And
if I were a stockholder (which I am not) I would expect nothing less.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1087793552.594682@yasure...

And in the past I would have agreed with you: Not any more!

But I have written quotes on both current to within the last 60 days. So
I am not likely to be wrong. In fact I have it on good authority that
given a quote from IBM or Microsoft ... Oracle will match it or beat it.
I think like so much in this business ... the over-pricing of Oracle has
become mythology rather than reality.

--
Daniel Morgan

As I stated, Oracle is loosing market share rapidly, especially on Windows,
so they are slashing prices. The only other explanation is that they are
really stupid to lower their prices so much (I don't think anyone would said
that Oracle execs are stupid).

I don't see the numbers and don't care about the numbers ... but the
other reason Oracle might be slashing prices is that Microsoft is trying
to clone Oracle's multiversion technology in Yukon and Oracle might
want a bigger marketshare before facing a 'real' competitor on that
operating system.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark A]

> Exactly my point. Pricing must be based upon equivalent capabilities.

Not some simplistic jingoism such as vendor A's EE edition vs. vendor
B's EE edition.

The only thing that matters is when specific specifications are put on
the table and two or more vendors are asked to submit written bids for
the business. And that is where mythology must give way to the facts.

We are here for technology ... not one of us, as far as I know, gets
even a dime in commission no matter who sells the most licenses next
quarter. I know I certainly don't so I don't care. Lets not make
statements about "more expensive" vs "less expensive" unless we are
willing to put both the system specifications and the vendor's written
quotes up for comparison. Both vendors are charging as much as they
think they can given market conditions. And not one penny less. And
if I were a stockholder (which I am not) I would expect nothing less.

--
Daniel Morgan

Oh, I think 1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user is a lot less
expensive than Oracle (even after any necessary extender is added on). And a
lot less expensive than you thought.

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Exactly my point. Pricing must be based upon equivalent capabilities.
Not some simplistic jingoism such as vendor A's EE edition vs. vendor
B's EE edition.

The only thing that matters is when specific specifications are put on
the table and two or more vendors are asked to submit written bids for
the business. And that is where mythology must give way to the facts.

We are here for technology ... not one of us, as far as I know, gets
even a dime in commission no matter who sells the most licenses next
quarter. I know I certainly don't so I don't care. Lets not make
statements about "more expensive" vs "less expensive" unless we are
willing to put both the system specifications and the vendor's written
quotes up for comparison. Both vendors are charging as much as they
think they can given market conditions. And not one penny less. And
if I were a stockholder (which I am not) I would expect nothing less.

--
Daniel Morgan

Oh, I think 1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user is a lot less
expensive than Oracle (even after any necessary extender is added on). And a
lot less expensive than you thought.

If you do then answer this question ... how many "additional users" are
there on the World Wide Web?

If you were correct ... I'd think the written quote I have on my desk
would reflect it ... sad to say that is not the case. The difference
between the two quotes wouldn't buy me a week's worth a dinners at a
decent restaurant.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark A]

> > Oh, I think 1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user is a lot less

expensive than Oracle (even after any necessary extender is added on). And a lot less expensive than you thought.

If you do then answer this question ... how many "additional users" are
there on the World Wide Web?

If you were correct ... I'd think the written quote I have on my desk
would reflect it ... sad to say that is not the case. The difference
between the two quotes wouldn't buy me a week's worth a dinners at a
decent restaurant.

--
Daniel Morgan

I think you missed the part where I explained that. There is a feature in
DB2 which allows applications to share connections, so you can limit the
number of simultaneous DB2 connections to 5 (5 are included in the
$1,211.00) regardless of how many actual users are on the system connected
to the application. In this situation, DB2 just reuses the same connection.
Any users over the 5 licenses that come with the $1,211.00 (or whatever
number of extra licenses that are purchased) would just wait for a running
DB2 process to finish and then execute.

If you want an unlimited number of connections, then you can purchase the
DB2 Workstation Server Edition Unlimited Edition, which charges on a CPU
basis (I don't have pricing for that) rather than number of simultaneous DB2
connections.

So be careful and don't confuse the number of users connected to an
application and the number of simultaneous DB2 connections needed.

[Serge Rielau]

Actually partitioning (DB2 UDB for LUW calls is organization to curb
confusion) of a table is orthogonal to partitioning of the database.
Let's use multi-dimensional clustering (MDC) as one example of
"organization" since it is supported in DB2 UDB for LUW at present.
MDC is supported in DB2 + DPF. What happens is that first the table is
hash partitioned across the database partitions, then MDC kicks in and
clusters the data in extends (which are a subdivision of a tablespace).
Now, you can add "range partitioning" or "fragmented tables" to that and
you end up with a hierarchie.
First comes database partitioning, then comes range partitioning and
finally multidimensional clustering.

I'm not certain if adding anny other partitioning but hash on the
database level is a good idea. It invites data skew and would be a
maintenance nightmare to add more database partitions.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Noons]

Serge Rielau apparently said,on my timestamp of 21/06/2004 9:42 PM:

"organization" since it is supported in DB2 UDB for LUW at present.
MDC is supported in DB2 + DPF. What happens is that first the table is
Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

I'm not certain if adding anny other partitioning but hash on the
database level is a good idea. It invites data skew and would be a
maintenance nightmare to add more database partitions.

Only if you implement it as an add-on option...

I get extremely worried everytime I hear the word "partitioning"
mixed up with "clustering" and "databases".

Rather than the simple word "table". The reason for this worry is
that one thing is database clustering, the other (and completely
different one) is object partitioning. The two should never be
mixed under the penalty of obfuscation. Let's not go into
index partitioning and optimization across multiple nodes.

Last time I looked, adding a partition to a table in Oracle
was a simple SQL statement that can be run without
affecting other users of said table. Same goes for dropping
a partition. Both tables and indexes work the same way.
None of that multi-whatever clustering, orthogonal or not, or
multiple databases: single instance is plenty enough (single
license, no clustering add-ons).

And if it is not a hash partition, (a date range partition, for
example) it is if anything easier. Which makes it extremely easy
to implement very large "rolling date" transaction tables in a
single database instance . Since V8.0, BTW. MOL 1997.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[datab0y]

"Mark A" <no****@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<Vr****************@news.uswest.net>...

If you want an unlimited number of connections, then you can purchase the
DB2 Workstation Server Edition Unlimited Edition, which charges on a CPU
basis (I don't have pricing for that) rather than number of simultaneous DB2
connections.

I think this product is about $7500/CPU. Not sure if you need any
extenders at all - since limited text search is already available
within the base product. So, about $30k total plus HACMP would do it.

Personally, I have never used a db2 extender, and as a rule avoid all
database extensions (whether oracle, db2, or whatever). The idea of
using the nasty built-in ETL, content management, etc that comes with
either of those products gives me a sour stomach. Not just because of
the vendor lock-in either, the database vendor implementations are
usually bizarre.

[Serge Rielau]

DPF stands for "Database Partitioning Feature".
(Please don't shoot the messenger, I didn't invent the name)
You may know is as "EEE" (Extended Enterprise Edition) prior to V8.
It's scale-out and yes it is, at present, priced extra.

The point I was trying hard to make is that DPF and partitoned tables
are not comparable. It is nonsense to compare them.

Once partitioned tables ar eintroduced into DB2 they will of course we
easy to administer. With or without DPF being present.

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Ian]

Noons wrote:

Serge Rielau apparently said,on my timestamp of 21/06/2004 9:42 PM:

"organization" since it is supported in DB2 UDB for LUW at present.
MDC is supported in DB2 + DPF. What happens is that first the table is

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

You mean like every Oracle option? According to the Oracle E-Business
Global Price List (http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/ePLext.pdf),
the following features are separately priced options for Oracle Enterprise
Edition:

Real Application Clusters
Partitioning
OLAP
Data Mining
Spatial
Advanced Security
Label Security

I was suprised to learn that (range/list) partitioning costs extra on
Oracle.

This is no different than DB2. DB2 UDB ESE has some add-on cost options,
too:

Database Partitioning Feature
Net Search Extender
Spatial Extender
Intelligent Miner
Cube Views
OLAP Server


So, what's your point?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Oh, I think 1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user is a lot less
expensive than Oracle (even after any necessary extender is added on).
And a
lot less expensive than you thought.
If you do then answer this question ... how many "additional users" are
there on the World Wide Web?

If you were correct ... I'd think the written quote I have on my desk
would reflect it ... sad to say that is not the case. The difference
between the two quotes wouldn't buy me a week's worth a dinners at a
decent restaurant.

--
Daniel Morgan

I think you missed the part where I explained that. There is a feature in
DB2 which allows applications to share connections, so you can limit the
number of simultaneous DB2 connections to 5 (5 are included in the
$1,211.00) regardless of how many actual users are on the system connected
to the application. In this situation, DB2 just reuses the same connection.

Everybody offers connection pooling. Oracle offers the same 5 user
license for less ($149.00 per connected user for SE1 and $300 per
connected user for SE).

You don't connect the WWW to a per-user license unless you are either
crazy or in desparate need of legal counsel.
Any users over the 5 licenses that come with the $1,211.00 (or whatever
number of extra licenses that are purchased) would just wait for a running
DB2 process to finish and then execute.
This is a web application. 'Wait' would equate to 'bankruptcy'.
If you want an unlimited number of connections, then you can purchase the
DB2 Workstation Server Edition Unlimited Edition, which charges on a CPU
basis (I don't have pricing for that) rather than number of simultaneous DB2
connections.

So be careful and don't confuse the number of users connected to an
application and the number of simultaneous DB2 connections needed.

The sales reps from IBM know all of this. So do I. So does the person
from purchasing assigned to this. In the end the difference between the
pricing ... Oracle vs DB2 ... was inconsequential.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Noons wrote:

Serge Rielau apparently said,on my timestamp of 21/06/2004 9:42 PM:

"organization" since it is supported in DB2 UDB for LUW at present.
MDC is supported in DB2 + DPF. What happens is that first the table is

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

That's what it is. Installed by default but you can not use it without
paying an additional licensing fee.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[datab0y]

Ian <ia*****@mobileaudio.com> wrote in message news:<40**********@corp.newsgroups.com>...

Noons wrote:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

You mean like every Oracle option? According to the Oracle E-Business
Global Price List (http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/ePLext.pdf)

Aha, well - the point is that Oracle costs have dropped
*significantly* in the last four years, while DB2 hasn't.

For example, in the system that Daniel Morgan mentioned would cost
around $80k/ CPU with oracle. That would include
enterprise edition $40k
+ partitioning $10k
+ RAC $20k
+ advanced security $10k
-------
$80k / CPU

I mentioned before that DB2 workgroup server would do that job at
about $7.5k/CPU, or about 10% of the oracle cost. Now that isn't
entirely fair, since there are ways to bump up that cost - even as
high as $35k if you put everything in. That's still less than 50% of
the cost of oracle (and oracle could also bump up its price with that
long list of add-ons). So, DB2 is sounding really inexpensive here -
certainly not way more expensive as Daniel asserted.

However, keep in mind that this is a huge drop in price for oracle.
Imagine if it still used its power-unit licensing cost - and you were
going to use four 3 ghz CPUs. That would cost about $300k / CPU - or
about $1.2m for to fully license the quad. Based upon this - oracle
has dropped its price around 75% in four years!

Now, I'm not sure how DB2 UDB was licensed in 2000 - but I think it
was actually less than it is now. So, at the same time oracle has
dropped its price 75% db2 has raised its price 10% I believe (please
correct me on the older db2 prices).

So back to my original question - any one have tips on using
competitive pricing to drive oracle down to more competitive pricing?

[Daniel Morgan]

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

Ian <ia*****@mobileaudio.com> wrote in message news:<40**********@corp.newsgroups.com>...

Noons wrote:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

You mean like every Oracle option? According to the Oracle E-Business
Global Price List (http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/ePLext.pdf)

Aha, well - the point is that Oracle costs have dropped
*significantly* in the last four years, while DB2 hasn't.

For example, in the system that Daniel Morgan mentioned would cost
around $80k/ CPU with oracle. That would include
enterprise edition $40k
+ partitioning $10k
+ RAC $20k
+ advanced security $10k
-------
$80k / CPU

I mentioned before that DB2 workgroup server would do that job at
about $7.5k/CPU, or about 10% of the oracle cost. Now that isn't
entirely fair, since there are ways to bump up that cost - even as
high as $35k if you put everything in. That's still less than 50% of
the cost of oracle (and oracle could also bump up its price with that
long list of add-ons). So, DB2 is sounding really inexpensive here -
certainly not way more expensive as Daniel asserted.

However, keep in mind that this is a huge drop in price for oracle.
Imagine if it still used its power-unit licensing cost - and you were
going to use four 3 ghz CPUs. That would cost about $300k / CPU - or
about $1.2m for to fully license the quad. Based upon this - oracle
has dropped its price around 75% in four years!

Now, I'm not sure how DB2 UDB was licensed in 2000 - but I think it
was actually less than it is now. So, at the same time oracle has
dropped its price 75% db2 has raised its price 10% I believe (please
correct me on the older db2 prices).

So back to my original question - any one have tips on using
competitive pricing to drive oracle down to more competitive pricing?

Not if you get your prices from a sales rep rather than from a web site.
Not even close.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark Townsend]

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

For example, in the system that Daniel Morgan mentioned would cost
around $80k/ CPU with oracle. That would include
enterprise edition $40k
+ partitioning $10k
+ RAC $20k
+ advanced security $10k
-------
$80k / CPU

I mentioned before that DB2 workgroup server would do that job at
about $7.5k/CPU, or about 10% of the oracle cost.
<snip>

A couple of things should be pointed out with this comparison

1) You are comparing IBM's workgroup server unlimited edition ( IBM DB2
WUSE, limited to 4 CPUs and 32 bits, targeted at small web serving
environments) with Oracle's Enterprise Edition. A better
apples-to-apples comparison would be IBM's workgroup server unlimited
edition pricing, with Oracle's Standard Edition One (limited to 2 CPUs)
or Standard Edition (limited to 4 CPUs, inlcuding RAC support for up to
4 CPUs in a cluster).

Comparative based prices are then

Oracle SE1 4995 per CPU
IBM DB2 WUSE 7500 per CPU
Oracle SE 15000 per CPU (includes RAC)

2) IBM has no equivalent to Oracle's Partitioning or RAC option, so I'm
not sure why you would even try to include them in a comparison. They
also require an additional Tivoli product to provide the same capability
that Advanced Security option provides.

However, keep in mind that this is a huge drop in price for oracle.
Imagine if it still used its power-unit licensing cost - and you were
going to use four 3 ghz CPUs. That would cost about $300k / CPU - or
about $1.2m for to fully license the quad. Based upon this - oracle
has dropped its price around 75% in four years!
Where did you get this price from ? It sounds completely made up -
AFAIK, Oracle never published power unit pricing for 3 GHz machines.
Now, I'm not sure how DB2 UDB was licensed in 2000 - but I think it
was actually less than it is now. So, at the same time oracle has
dropped its price 75% db2 has raised its price 10% I believe (please
correct me on the older db2 prices).
I'm not sure that IBM has indeed raised prices. This quote is taken
directly from the IBM website "DB2 WSE and DB2 WSUE have undergone
significant licensing changes when compared to DB2 V7. If you licensed
DB2 WSE V7 with the Internet Processor license, you must migrate to DB2
WSUE V8. The cost of DB2 WSUE V8 has been reduced by 47% when compared
to DB2 V7 prices."

In addition, it seems that IBM nows bundles 1 year of support with their
high end licence (DB2 ESE) - at least, those purchased via Passport
Advantage. This may account for what you are seeing as raised prices,
but in reality it's just a means of revenue recognition (certain
marketshare analysis, for instance, only count "new" licence revenue
towards their marketshare numbers - so bundling support with upfront
licences can help improve that number. Products that require a re-up as
you move from one version to another also benefit from this business
practice)
So back to my original question - any one have tips on using
competitive pricing to drive oracle down to more competitive pricing?

1) Get your figures straight 2) Negotiate

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark Townsend wrote:

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

For example, in the system that Daniel Morgan mentioned would cost
around $80k/ CPU with oracle. That would include
enterprise edition $40k
+ partitioning $10k
+ RAC $20k
+ advanced security $10k
-------
$80k / CPU

I mentioned before that DB2 workgroup server would do that job at
about $7.5k/CPU, or about 10% of the oracle cost.

<snip>

A couple of things should be pointed out with this comparison

1) You are comparing IBM's workgroup server unlimited edition ( IBM DB2
WUSE, limited to 4 CPUs and 32 bits, targeted at small web serving
environments) with Oracle's Enterprise Edition. A better
apples-to-apples comparison would be IBM's workgroup server unlimited
edition pricing, with Oracle's Standard Edition One (limited to 2 CPUs)
or Standard Edition (limited to 4 CPUs, inlcuding RAC support for up to
4 CPUs in a cluster).

Comparative based prices are then

Oracle SE1 4995 per CPU
IBM DB2 WUSE 7500 per CPU
Oracle SE 15000 per CPU (includes RAC)

2) IBM has no equivalent to Oracle's Partitioning or RAC option, so I'm
not sure why you would even try to include them in a comparison. They
also require an additional Tivoli product to provide the same capability
that Advanced Security option provides.

Not that dread mention of Tivoli to provide equivalent security. Every
time I bring that up the blue suits go into attack mode. I also note
that in the comparisons not once was the DPF price or the required
add-on for HA included even though just one or two posts earlier
everyone agreed that they were essential.

So back to my original question - any one have tips on using
competitive pricing to drive oracle down to more competitive pricing?

1) Get your figures straight 2) Negotiate

Anyone that doesn't negotiate prices on enterprise software is someone
that would buy a car off the dealer's lot of the price listed in the
newspaper. And probably shouldn't be allowed to have a DBA account.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark A]

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VVNBc.157111$Ly.81952@attbi_s01...

A couple of things should be pointed out with this comparison

1) You are comparing IBM's workgroup server unlimited edition ( IBM DB2
WUSE, limited to 4 CPUs and 32 bits, targeted at small web serving
environments) with Oracle's Enterprise Edition. A better
apples-to-apples comparison would be IBM's workgroup server unlimited
edition pricing, with Oracle's Standard Edition One (limited to 2 CPUs)
or Standard Edition (limited to 4 CPUs, inlcuding RAC support for up to
4 CPUs in a cluster).

Comparative based prices are then

Oracle SE1 4995 per CPU
IBM DB2 WUSE 7500 per CPU
Oracle SE 15000 per CPU (includes RAC)

DB2 Workgroup Server Unlimited Edition is not needed. If there are a lot of
users at one time, you don't want each web user to have their own connection
into DB2 with only 4 processors. Connection pooling can be used with a
reasonable number of simultaneous users.

With connection pooling, a user might have to wait until another DB2 process
has finished, but they would be waiting on resources anyway (disk, CPU etc)
if everyone tried to run exactly at the same time.

[Noons]

Ian apparently said,on my timestamp of 22/06/2004 4:04 AM:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

You mean like every Oracle option?

No. The "meaning" is yours.
I was suprised to learn that (range/list) partitioning costs extra on
Oracle.
Me too, mainly because it isn't true.

So, what's your point?

Ditto.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Daniel Morgan apparently said,on my timestamp of 22/06/2004 6:42 AM:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

That's what it is. Installed by default but you can not use it without
paying an additional licensing fee.

Ah yes. One of those things that never get added to
the TCO of the "equivalent" configurations.
Just like Tivoli for even the most basic security.
Ah well, in character. What can one say...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Larry]

DB2 UDB includes authentication security capabilities. DB2 UDB includes
database object security (which to me is the most basic security for
an rdmbs). DB2 UDB includes column-level encryption.

Larry Edelstein

Noons wrote:

Daniel Morgan apparently said,on my timestamp of 22/06/2004 6:42 AM:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

That's what it is. Installed by default but you can not use it without
paying an additional licensing fee.

Ah yes. One of those things that never get added to
the TCO of the "equivalent" configurations.
Just like Tivoli for even the most basic security.
Ah well, in character. What can one say...

[Blair Adamache]

The reference to Tivoli for security is mystifying. DB2 can use Tivoli
storage manager (or Veritas or Legato) for Backup and archival
management. DB2 can use Tivoli products for monitoring.

For security, 99% of DB2 customers today use services provided by the
operating system (like Kerberos on Windows and RACF on zOS). I'm aware
that there are Tivoli security products, but none of them are part of a
typical DB2 installation.

Noons wrote:

Daniel Morgan apparently said,on my timestamp of 22/06/2004 6:42 AM:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

That's what it is. Installed by default but you can not use it without
paying an additional licensing fee.

Ah yes. One of those things that never get added to
the TCO of the "equivalent" configurations.
Just like Tivoli for even the most basic security.
Ah well, in character. What can one say...

[Noons]

Larry apparently said,on my timestamp of 23/06/2004 12:15 AM:

DB2 UDB includes authentication security capabilities.
"capabilities"?

DB2 UDB includes
database object security (which to me is the most basic security for an
rdmbs).
Really? How?
DB2 UDB includes column-level encryption.

And?

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Blair Adamache]

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Anyone that doesn't negotiate prices on enterprise software is someone
that would buy a car off the dealer's lot of the price listed in the
newspaper. And probably shouldn't be allowed to have a DBA account.

Yes, it seems that some software sales reps learned from used car dealers:

San Jose Mercury News
Chris O'Brien, 06/22/04

Oracle salesman Tony Kender was competing with PeopleSoft and SAP for a
client back in March 2002 when he fired off an e-mail to a supervisor
with the subject line: ``How Dirty Can I Fight?''

Kender wanted to insert a slide into his presentation bashing his rivals
and sought his boss's permission. ``This gives us the opportunity to
perform a bit of a sneak attack,'' he wrote to his supervisor.

The boss, Bob Greene, wrote back: ``Remember, SAP is not the enemy, as
much as you'll want to spank them. PeopleSoft is the enemy. Bury them. . .

``Now let me get back to my red meat breakfast.''

The e-mail exchange came to light during the Oracle antitrust trial in
which the U.S. government is trying to block Oracle's $7.7 billion
hostile takeover bid for rival PeopleSoft. It's a juicy example of how
the first two weeks of the trial in San Francisco have provided a rare,
behind-the-scenes look into the often vicious and high-stakes business
of selling software to the world's largest businesses and governments.
The revelations have added a note of drama to the normally arcane world
of business software.

The testimony from customers and tech executives has provided intimate
details about aggressive sales tactics by software suppliers -- in some
cases attacking rivals and offering customers discounts close to 100
percent. And it has painted an often unflattering picture of suppliers
and customers trying to manipulate each other over multimillion-dollar
deals.

``It does bring out clearly that there is really cutthroat competition
in this business,'' said Paul Hamerman, a vice president at Forrester
Research. ``And these vendors pull out all the stops to win a deal.''

The Justice Department is trying to block Oracle's $7.7 billion hostile
takeover bid for PeopleSoft, arguing it would reduce from three to two
the number of companies that sell human resource and financial software
to the largest customers. Oracle argues that the government has defined
the market too narrowly and that customers have plenty of options.

On Monday, the government presented its third economic expert of the
trial, Preston McAfee, a professor of the California Institute of
Technology, who testified that if PeopleSoft were to disappear, prices
for large business software customers would rise anywhere from 13
percent to 26 percent. ``Competition with PeopleSoft caused Oracle to
lower its prices,'' McAfee said.

It's clear that in many cases, the Big 3 of business software -- SAP of
Germany, PeopleSoft and Oracle -- compete against each other for a
handful of customers.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of this competition are thousands of
Oracle customer discount forms introduced by the Justice Department.
When an Oracle salesperson wants to offer a significant discount, he or
she must fill out forms seeking approval from bosses and detailing the
nature of the deal and the competition.

When trying to sell Oracle's human resource software to Teradyne, an
Oracle salesman wanted an 83 percent discount to win the deal. ``I am
requesting a relatively deep discount given the level of desperation at
[PeopleSoft], and the un-natural acts they are committing in the
field,'' he wrote.

At GAF Materials, Oracle was again squaring off against PeopleSoft when
a salesman requested approval for an 85 percent discount. PeopleSoft CEO
Craig Conway was apparently trying to get the company to delay its
purchase until June -- after the end of Oracle's fiscal year.

``We're in a head to head battle with PeopleSoft,'' the Oracle salesman
wrote. ``Craig Conway is calling in to the account to try to delay the
decision past 5/31, and have gotten ultra aggressive on the price and
discount to win the business. . . . Oracle account team and [PeopleSoft]
account team spent the entire day in the customer's office on 5/28
bidding and counterbidding against each other.''

For its part, Oracle turned up the pressure in March 2003 when its
salespeople launched a ``PeopleSoft Attack'' campaign. Oracle even set
up a ``PeopleSoft Competitive Help Desk'' for its salespeople to call
and get advice on sales tactics.

In a 100-page PowerPoint presentation submitted as evidence in the
trial, Oracle executives tried to give salespeople new ammunition to use
against PeopleSoft. First, the presentation outlined what Oracle
considered to be dirty tricks from PeopleSoft, such as handing out
doctored analyst reports, negative references and hiring former Oracle
managers and salespeople.

``PeopleSoft has no magical product, they have bugs, product
deficiencies, demo disasters, resource and morale issues, account
losses, and horror stories in the press to deal with,'' the presentation
said. ``Just like we do.''

Oracle urged its salespeople to ``lay land mines and undermine
PeopleSoft's credibility.''

They should try to create ``FUD'' -- fear, uncertainty and doubt --
about PeopleSoft's pricing and ``scare'' customers over its products'
lack of functions.......

[Larry]

Noons wrote:

Larry apparently said,on my timestamp of 23/06/2004 12:15 AM:

DB2 UDB includes authentication security capabilities.

"capabilities"?

Yes.

DB2 UDB includes database object security (which to me is the most
basic security for an rdmbs).

Really? How?

Via SQL Grant and Revoke commands.

DB2 UDB includes column-level encryption.

And?

And what?

Larry Edelstein

[datab0y]

Mark Townsend <ma***********@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<VVNBc.157111$Ly.81952@attbi_s01>...

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

1) You are comparing IBM's workgroup server unlimited edition ( IBM DB2
WUSE, limited to 4 CPUs and 32 bits, targeted at small web serving
environments) with Oracle's Enterprise Edition. A better
apples-to-apples comparison would be IBM's workgroup server unlimited
edition pricing, with Oracle's Standard Edition One (limited to 2 CPUs)
or Standard Edition (limited to 4 CPUs, inlcuding RAC support for up to
4 CPUs in a cluster).
yep, you're right.
2) IBM has no equivalent to Oracle's Partitioning or RAC option, so I'm
not sure why you would even try to include them in a comparison. They
also require an additional Tivoli product to provide the same capability
that Advanced Security option provides.

Actually, right now I've got several oracle & db2 systems that are
using range partitioning. The oracle database required additional
licensing for partitioning - but the db2 databases didn't. One is
using MDC and the other union-all views. Of the three techniques
Oracle's is the most sophisticated and has the most features probably,
though MDC is working fine. Union-alls are the most similar to the
Oracle technique though aren't nearly so polished. I assume that
we'll see them steadily improved over the next couple of years.

So, actually I'm getting table partitioning for free from DB2 but have
to pay for it from Oracle. If I want to add database partitioning to
the table partitioning - only then do I have to pay for it from db2.

I included these features in the estimate since they were implied as
needed by the Daniel's description.

However, keep in mind that this is a huge drop in price for oracle.
Imagine if it still used its power-unit licensing cost - and you were
going to use four 3 ghz CPUs. That would cost about $300k / CPU - or
about $1.2m for to fully license the quad. Based upon this - oracle
has dropped its price around 75% in four years!

Where did you get this price from ? It sounds completely made up -
AFAIK, Oracle never published power unit pricing for 3 GHz machines.

No it didn't publish based upon 3ghz machines in 2001, but it did
publish based upon the following formula:
- intel based: $1 / mhz / cpu
- risc based: $0.67 / mhz / cpu

At the time I was mostly specing out sun risc boxes - around 450 mhz
to 800 mhz IIRC. You could I assume get an intel 1 ghz machine at
that time. If that same licensing was being used today, then yes -
the cost would be $300k / CPU for a 3 ghz server.

The only reason that this pricing scheme was dropped in late 2001 was
due to a noticable drop in sales growth. I'm sure that it'll be back
if Oracle ever gets as confident as it was in 2000.

Now, I'm not sure how DB2 UDB was licensed in 2000 - but I think it
was actually less than it is now. So, at the same time oracle has
dropped its price 75% db2 has raised its price 10% I believe (please
correct me on the older db2 prices).

I'm not sure that IBM has indeed raised prices. This quote is taken
directly from the IBM website "DB2 WSE and DB2 WSUE have undergone
significant licensing changes when compared to DB2 V7. If you licensed
DB2 WSE V7 with the Internet Processor license, you must migrate to DB2
WSUE V8. The cost of DB2 WSUE V8 has been reduced by 47% when compared
to DB2 V7 prices."

ah, ok - thanks.

So back to my original question - any one have tips on using
competitive pricing to drive oracle down to more competitive pricing?

1) Get your figures straight 2) Negotiate

ok, but how much room do the oracle sales guys have to negotiate? Can
you pit resellers against one another? etc, etc.

BTW, one techniques that I've found to work well is to always ensure
that my application could theoretically use either oracle or some
other viable competitor - db2, informix, sybase, etc. This means
keeping portability in mind in the design stage, and avoiding any
unnecessary proprietary functionality. This goal encourages avoidance
of such vendor-specific components as etl, data mining, application
server, gateways, etc. That's not much of a limitation since most of
the database vendor-supplied solutions are gross anyways.

[Ian]

Noons wrote:

Ian apparently said,on my timestamp of 22/06/2004 4:04 AM:

Is this DPF thing one of those famous separately priced options?

You mean like every Oracle option?

No. The "meaning" is yours.

I was suprised to learn that (range/list) partitioning costs extra on
Oracle.

Me too, mainly because it isn't true.

It's not? Where does Oracle say that this isn't a separately licensed
product? Are they publishing incorrect information in their global
price list?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Ian]

Mark Townsend wrote:

2) IBM has no equivalent to Oracle's Partitioning or RAC option, so I'm
not sure why you would even try to include them in a comparison. They
also require an additional Tivoli product to provide the same capability
that Advanced Security option provides.

What exactly does the Advanced Security option offer? I am looking at the
data sheet for the product, and it looks like it provides the ability for
Oracle to plug in to external (enterprise) authentication - like Oracle
Internet Directory, LDAP, RADIUS, etc ?

Don't these other products have to be licensed (whether they are from
Oracle or another vendor) ?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Ian]

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote:

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

For example, in the system that Daniel Morgan mentioned would cost
around $80k/ CPU with oracle. That would include
enterprise edition $40k
+ partitioning $10k
+ RAC $20k
+ advanced security $10k
-------
$80k / CPU

I mentioned before that DB2 workgroup server would do that job at
about $7.5k/CPU, or about 10% of the oracle cost.
<snip>

A couple of things should be pointed out with this comparison

1) You are comparing IBM's workgroup server unlimited edition ( IBM
DB2 WUSE, limited to 4 CPUs and 32 bits, targeted at small web serving
environments) with Oracle's Enterprise Edition. A better
apples-to-apples comparison would be IBM's workgroup server unlimited
edition pricing, with Oracle's Standard Edition One (limited to 2
CPUs) or Standard Edition (limited to 4 CPUs, inlcuding RAC support
for up to 4 CPUs in a cluster).

Comparative based prices are then

Oracle SE1 4995 per CPU
IBM DB2 WUSE 7500 per CPU
Oracle SE 15000 per CPU (includes RAC)

2) IBM has no equivalent to Oracle's Partitioning or RAC option, so
I'm not sure why you would even try to include them in a comparison.
They also require an additional Tivoli product to provide the same
capability that Advanced Security option provides.

Not that dread mention of Tivoli to provide equivalent security. Every
time I bring that up the blue suits go into attack mode.

I also note
that in the comparisons not once was the DPF price or the required
add-on for HA included even though just one or two posts earlier
everyone agreed that they were essential.

1) DPF is not a high availability feature. DPF provides for
scalability only. HA is a completely separate issue, and works
with DB2 regardless of which packaging (Express, WSE or ESE).
2) There certainly may be some cost for the associated HA product,
like HACMP/Sun Cluster/Veritas Cluster/MSCS/etc. I don't know
about that pricing. But, IBM does not charge anything extra if
you want to plug DB2 in to a cluster manager -- the tools are
provided by IBM for free to plug DB2 into a cluster manager.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Daniel Morgan]

Blair Adamache wrote:

For security, 99% of DB2 customers today use services provided by the
operating system (like Kerberos on Windows and RACF on zOS). I'm aware
that there are Tivoli security products, but none of them are part of a
typical DB2 installation.

They do so because equivalent security is an add-on that costs more
money. And equating mainframe operating system level security to
security on Windows ... that I find hard to take in a single bite.

To me operating system security on a server is a hole to be avoided
whenever possible. At least on most operating systems.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Larry wrote:

Noons wrote:

Larry apparently said,on my timestamp of 23/06/2004 12:15 AM:

DB2 UDB includes authentication security capabilities.

"capabilities"?

Yes.

DB2 UDB includes database object security (which to me is the most
basic security for an rdmbs).

Really? How?

Via SQL Grant and Revoke commands.

DB2 UDB includes column-level encryption.

And?

And what?

Larry Edelstein

I think Noons attempt was to say ... "and is that all?" Because that's
not much.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Richard D. Latham]

Blair Adamache <ba*******@2muchspam.yahoo.com> writes:

The reference to Tivoli for security is mystifying. DB2 can use Tivoli
storage manager (or Veritas or Legato) for Backup and archival
management. DB2 can use Tivoli products for monitoring.

For security, 99% of DB2 customers today use services provided by the
operating system (like Kerberos on Windows and RACF on zOS). I'm aware
that there are Tivoli security products, but none of them are part of
a typical DB2 installation.

I suspect folks are talking about the delegation of OS user
authentication and authorization to Tivoli Identity Manager.

--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham la*****@us.ibm.com

[Database Guy]

Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1087885625.661141@yasure>...

1) Get your figures straight 2) Negotiate

Anyone that doesn't negotiate prices on enterprise software is someone
that would buy a car off the dealer's lot of the price listed in the
newspaper. And probably shouldn't be allowed to have a DBA account.

This is all very well, but even if Oracle price-match on the initial
deal, that's a one-off saving. Once Oracle has locked you in, you'll
find them a lot less obliging next time.

List prices do matter because they give a better guide to long-term
costs.
DG

[Daniel Morgan]

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:

Actually, right now I've got several oracle & db2 systems that are
using range partitioning.
DB2 using range partitioning? How? My assumption is that you are talking
about different functionality using the same word. Because union-all
views are not partitioning.
So, actually I'm getting table partitioning for free from DB2 but have
to pay for it from Oracle.
Word is the same ... functionality is completely different.

But even if what you said was correct ... How could use use union-all
views to range partition by date and subpartition by hash? You are
talking a work-around for a technology that doesn't exist in the
product.

Nothing wrong with that but it just isn't the same thing.
ok, but how much room do the oracle sales guys have to negotiate? Can
you pit resellers against one another? etc, etc.

Absolutely. They have huge flexibility. Like used car salesmen.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Ian wrote:

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote:

da*****@yahoo.com wrote:
For example, in the system that Daniel Morgan mentioned would cost
around $80k/ CPU with oracle. That would include
enterprise edition $40k
+ partitioning $10k
+ RAC $20k
+ advanced security $10k
-------
$80k / CPU

I mentioned before that DB2 workgroup server would do that job at
about $7.5k/CPU, or about 10% of the oracle cost.


<snip>

A couple of things should be pointed out with this comparison

1) You are comparing IBM's workgroup server unlimited edition ( IBM
DB2 WUSE, limited to 4 CPUs and 32 bits, targeted at small web
serving environments) with Oracle's Enterprise Edition. A better
apples-to-apples comparison would be IBM's workgroup server unlimited
edition pricing, with Oracle's Standard Edition One (limited to 2
CPUs) or Standard Edition (limited to 4 CPUs, inlcuding RAC support
for up to 4 CPUs in a cluster).

Comparative based prices are then

Oracle SE1 4995 per CPU
IBM DB2 WUSE 7500 per CPU
Oracle SE 15000 per CPU (includes RAC)

2) IBM has no equivalent to Oracle's Partitioning or RAC option, so
I'm not sure why you would even try to include them in a comparison.
They also require an additional Tivoli product to provide the same
capability that Advanced Security option provides.

Not that dread mention of Tivoli to provide equivalent security. Every
time I bring that up the blue suits go into attack mode.

> I also note

that in the comparisons not once was the DPF price or the required
add-on for HA included even though just one or two posts earlier
everyone agreed that they were essential.

1) DPF is not a high availability feature. DPF provides for
scalability only. HA is a completely separate issue, and works
with DB2 regardless of which packaging (Express, WSE or ESE).
2) There certainly may be some cost for the associated HA product,
like HACMP/Sun Cluster/Veritas Cluster/MSCS/etc. I don't know
about that pricing. But, IBM does not charge anything extra if
you want to plug DB2 in to a cluster manager -- the tools are
provided by IBM for free to plug DB2 into a cluster manager.

That DPF and HA are different is constained in my statement. That IBM
charges more to equate with the system requirements I described is
not a good thing or a bad thing ... it is just a fact.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)