db2 to oracle migration

[t3chn0n3rd]

are most IT shops migrating from db2 to oracle?

[The Boss]

t3chn0n3rd wrote:

are most IT shops migrating from db2 to oracle?

No, why would they?

--
Jeroen

[Roger]

On Jan 20, 5:46 pm, "The Boss" <[e-mail]:

t3chn0n3rd wrote:

are most IT shops migrating from db2 to oracle?

No, why would they?

--
Jeroen

No...i thought people always moved from a bad a product to a good one.
So on that basis, why would anyone on their right mind would move from
DB2 to Oracle ?!?!

Cheers !

Roger

[Serge Rielau]

DA Morgan wrote:

When the current generation of DB2 experts retire ... the quality of
product will be of little import.

Last I checked (on GULP.de) the average age of DB2 consultants was only
marginally higher than that of Oracle consultants.
The database skills you get out of colleges and universities are weak
either way.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[DB2Tech]

On Jan 23, 10:58 am, Serge Rielau <[e-mail]:

DA Morgan wrote:

When the current generation of DB2 experts retire ... the quality of
product will be of little import.

Last I checked (on GULP.de) the average age of DB2 consultants was only
marginally higher than that of Oracle consultants.
The database skills you get out of colleges and universities are weak
either way.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

I have been working with z/OS DB2 since 1989. I have done Oracle but
not nearly as much. Oracle and DB2 are better products because they
have to compete against each other. We benefit.

BTW: I have never encountered Oracle on z/OS. DB2 for z/OS is a
separate code base and is optimized for the z/OS environment.

Penn

[DA Morgan]

Serge Rielau wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

>When the current generation of DB2 experts retire ... the quality of
product will be of little import.

Last I checked (on GULP.de) the average age of DB2 consultants was only
marginally higher than that of Oracle consultants.
The database skills you get out of colleges and universities are weak
either way.

Cheers
Serge

Germany is not the world. Neither is the US. But a quick look around the
data center will quickly demonstrate the demographic reality. The skill
set coming out of college is irrelevant: I don't teach 20 year olds. But
I do see a very substantial number of people writing in mySQL, Oracle,
and SQL Server who are a full 10-15 years younger than those of us that
remember punch cards.

I spend quite a bit of time interviewing CTOs and IT managers about
their concerns. Not one of them spends their time worrying about which
of the big three commercial vendors has the better product. What they
are talking about is the age and size of the talent pool.

I just finished teaching a two week DBA intensive in Portland Oregon.
Because there were developers there that wanted to become DBAs? Not one.
Because product A was vastly superior to product B? Not a chance.
Because a group of managers determined that there was not a big enough
talent pool in their state from which to choose new employees!

So they got together and made it bigger. It was just that simple. And
two months from now we are going to run another boot camp for the same
group for exactly the same reason.

It is time for technologists to stop thinking about CPUs and tuples and
start thinking about FTEs and net revenues. No business ever made a
profit because they had the best IT department.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

[Bob Jones]

BTW: I have never encountered Oracle on z/OS. DB2 for z/OS is a

separate code base and is optimized for the z/OS environment.

I thought DB2 for z/OS is 99% the same as LUW as IBM used to claim. Is it
not true?

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:zT*****************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

I thought DB2 for z/OS is 99% the same as LUW as IBM used to claim. Is it
not true?

It is 99% the same at the DML level (select, insert, update, delete). That
allows portability of applications from one platform to another.

They not the same code base and is substantially different in most every
other respects. IBM never claimed otherwise. If you thought so, then you
were not listening carefully.

But compatibility of databases at the DML level is nothing to sneeze at, as
anyone who has tried to migrate an application from one database to another
knows.

Oracle folks like to make a big deal about the facts that DB2 for Linux,
UNIX, and Windows is a different product than DB2 for z/OS, but very few
shops run Oracle on z/OS for any kind of important application. If Oracle is
installed on z/OS, it usually because they got a free license. I once got a
list from an Oracle sales rep of 5 Fortune 100 companies that had Oracle
installed on OS/390, and I checked every one of the 5 references provided to
me. None of them panned out. They had it installed, but not using it for
anything meaningful.

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:F4*******************@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...

I hope you are not telling me z/OS is the only platform that is suitable
for mission critical apps. What are the largest stock exchange companies
running these days? Mostly non-mainframe.

I didn't say a mission critical application cannot run on UNIX/Linux. But
there are a lot of companies who have chosen to run their applications on
the mainframe.

Those applications you speak of that run on UNIX/Linux usually have some
sort of redundant/parallel processing in case of hardware or system failure.
These feature are not cheap.

Ok, let's talk about TCO. How much does a z 890 or 990 cost these days?
How much are z/OS and other software license? What is the power
consumption of a mainframe and how much space it takes up. It still
doesn't have a tpc benchmark.

It is a lot cheaper than it used to be. For example the machines are now air
cooled instead of water cooled (a lot of PC game enthusiasts I know have
water cooled PC's these days, which is rather an iron switch form the old
days of big iron).

Personally, having worked on DB2 mainframe in the early years, I work almost
exclusively with DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows (mostly Linux). But I am
not going to say that people who still use the mainframe are stupid.

[Stefano P.]

We have a gang here in the lab which actually never ever is in the lab. :-)

They travel the world teaching DB2. They are bursting at the seams,
trying to keep up with demand.

And some other "collegues" from Rochester are out of the labs teaching
DB2 for i5/OS ;-)

Cheers
Serge

Regards
Stefano P.

--
"Niuna impresa, per minima che sia,
può avere cominciamento e fine senza queste tre cose:
e cioè senza sapere, senza potere, senza con amor volere"
[Anonimo fiorentino, XIV sec.]

(togliere le "pinzillacchere" dall'indirizzo email ;-)

[Serge Rielau]

DA Morgan wrote:

Come on out and I'll take
you to dinner at the Empress. They've a reasonably good selection of
single malts. <g>

I don't drink beer.

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:hL****************@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM) said.
We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW. They
should probably call it DBZ instead.

The term DB2 was used for the mainframe product name in 1983 before DB2 LUW
(or its predecessors) existed. The first version of DB2 LUW was originally
called OS/2 Database Manager and came bundled with OS/2 EE (along with
Communication Manager) in about 1989.

I don't have any problem with IBM calling the various versions DB2 for ....
They are 99% compatible at the application level, which is an important
consideration . Understanding that they may be different code base and
different at the administration level, but compatible at the DML level, does
not take a rocket scientist to understand and comprehend.

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:cB****************@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

Then I am not sure why you brought up mission critical apps, if it is a
non-issue on either platform. Yep, there are "a lot" of companies running
z/OS. They mainly fall into 2 catagories: ones that cannot affort to
migrate the applications and ones with decision makers still dwelling in
the past.

It is more reliable to run an applicaiton on DB2 for z/OS than on LUW unless
you set up some sort of failover and redundancy. The z/OS operating system
and hardware are still more reliable than LUW.

[Larry]

Bob Jones wrote:

>

Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM) said.
We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW. They should
probably call it DBZ instead.

Not really. They are very similar. Much more similar than Oracle is to
DB2. 100% compatibility on DML and 90%+ on DDL. SQL APIs almost exactly
the same, if not the same. Features and functions very similar, but this
is where they can differ (but may not) as for how they are implemented
.... depending upon what you are trying to accomplish.

Larry E.

[Bob Jones]

"Mark A" <no****@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:49*******************@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:cB****************@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

>Then I am not sure why you brought up mission critical apps, if it is a
non-issue on either platform. Yep, there are "a lot" of companies running
z/OS. They mainly fall into 2 catagories: ones that cannot affort to
migrate the applications and ones with decision makers still dwelling in
the past.

It is more reliable to run an applicaiton on DB2 for z/OS than on LUW
unless you set up some sort of failover and redundancy. The z/OS operating
system and hardware are still more reliable than LUW.

There is really no data to support that. Any system can fail, mostly due to
human factor. I have seen UNIX runnning for many years without issues. I
have also seen z/OS locked up and crawling frequently. Other times I had
different experience. The fact is that LUW is sufficiently reliable, even
loaded with variety of applications from different vendors.

[Bob Jones]

"Mark A" <no****@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:Q6*******************@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:hL****************@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

>Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM)
said. We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW.
They should probably call it DBZ instead.

The term DB2 was used for the mainframe product name in 1983 before DB2
LUW (or its predecessors) existed. The first version of DB2 LUW was
originally called OS/2 Database Manager and came bundled with OS/2 EE
(along with Communication Manager) in about 1989.

I don't have any problem with IBM calling the various versions DB2 for
.... They are 99% compatible at the application level, which is an
important consideration . Understanding that they may be different code
base and different at the administration level, but compatible at the DML
level, does not take a rocket scientist to understand and comprehend.

Now we are going from "99% the same" to "99% compatible DML". Wouldn't it be
funny if SQL is different on LUW and z/OS?

[Bob Jones]

"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

>

Bob Jones wrote:

>>

Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM)
said. We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW.
They should probably call it DBZ instead.

Not really. They are very similar. Much more similar than Oracle is to
DB2. 100% compatibility on DML and 90%+ on DDL. SQL APIs almost exactly
the same, if not the same. Features and functions very similar, but this
is where they can differ (but may not) as for how they are implemented ...
depending upon what you are trying to accomplish.

Was there really a question that Oracle is not as similar to DB2? We are
talking about all aspects of DB2. After all we don't just buy it to use DML.

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:ko*****************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

There is really no data to support that. Any system can fail, mostly due
to human factor. I have seen UNIX runnning for many years without issues.
I have also seen z/OS locked up and crawling frequently. Other times I had
different experience. The fact is that LUW is sufficiently reliable, even
loaded with variety of applications from different vendors.

DB2 for LUW is very reliable. I don't think that a Linux/UNIX OS or hardware
platform is as reliable as z/OS.

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:ze**************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .

I do not object to whatever choice any one makes, but I do like to get the
facts straight. Most people like to make informed decisions.

I think that when people decide to make a decision like that, it is
disingenuous for any of us to presuppose people don't know that facts. Also,
there are a lot of other factors (facts) that we may not be aware of.

[Larry]

Bob Jones wrote:

"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

>>
Bob Jones wrote:

>>>
Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM)
said. We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW.
They should probably call it DBZ instead.

Not really. They are very similar. Much more similar than Oracle is to
DB2. 100% compatibility on DML and 90%+ on DDL. SQL APIs almost exactly
the same, if not the same. Features and functions very similar, but this
is where they can differ (but may not) as for how they are implemented ...
depending upon what you are trying to accomplish.

Was there really a question that Oracle is not as similar to DB2? We are
talking about all aspects of DB2. After all we don't just buy it to use DML.

You buy it to run applications, and the point is that the applications
are portable ... and so are the skills ... as I said, much more so than
Oracle.

Larry E.

[Bob Jones]

"Mark A" <no****@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:o0*******************@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:ze**************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .

>I do not object to whatever choice any one makes, but I do like to get
the facts straight. Most people like to make informed decisions.

I think that when people decide to make a decision like that, it is
disingenuous for any of us to presuppose people don't know that facts.
Also, there are a lot of other factors (facts) that we may not be aware
of.

That would make every one of us disingenuous by posting facts here.

[Bob Jones]

"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

Bob Jones wrote:

>"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

>>>
Bob Jones wrote:


Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM)
said. We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW.
They should probably call it DBZ instead.

Not really. They are very similar. Much more similar than Oracle is to
DB2. 100% compatibility on DML and 90%+ on DDL. SQL APIs almost exactly
the same, if not the same. Features and functions very similar, but this
is where they can differ (but may not) as for how they are implemented
... depending upon what you are trying to accomplish.

Was there really a question that Oracle is not as similar to DB2? We are
talking about all aspects of DB2. After all we don't just buy it to use
DML.

You buy it to run applications, and the point is that the applications are
portable ... and so are the skills ... as I said, much more so than
Oracle.

That seems to be contradicting with previous comments made by your fellows.
Go back and read them.

[Larry]

Bob Jones wrote:

"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

>>Bob Jones wrote:

>>>"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...
Bob Jones wrote:


>Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM)
>said. We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW.
>They should probably call it DBZ instead.

Not really. They are very similar. Much more similar than Oracle is to
DB2. 100% compatibility on DML and 90%+ on DDL. SQL APIs almost exactly
the same, if not the same. Features and functions very similar, but this
is where they can differ (but may not) as for how they are implemented
... depending upon what you are trying to accomplish.

Was there really a question that Oracle is not as similar to DB2? We are
talking about all aspects of DB2. After all we don't just buy it to use
DML.

You buy it to run applications, and the point is that the applications are
portable ... and so are the skills ... as I said, much more so than
Oracle.

That seems to be contradicting with previous comments made by your fellows.
Go back and read them.

No it's not, and I'm not going to feed your trollism anymore.

Larry E.

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:RY****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...

>
That would make every one of us disingenuous by posting facts here.

You may know some facts, but you don't know all of them. Each company has
its own reasons for doing things.

[Serge Rielau]

EOT

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Bob Jones]

"Mark A" <no****@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:zL*******************@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:RY****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...

>>
That would make every one of us disingenuous by posting facts here.

You may know some facts, but you don't know all of them. Each company has
its own reasons for doing things.

I don't disagree with that.

[Bob Jones]

"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

Bob Jones wrote:

>"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

>>>Bob Jones wrote:
"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...
>Bob Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Actually I could care less about what the DB2 instructors (from IBM)
>>said. We all knew well DB2 for z/OS is not that much the same as LUW.
>>They should probably call it DBZ instead.
>
>Not really. They are very similar. Much more similar than Oracle is to
>DB2. 100% compatibility on DML and 90%+ on DDL. SQL APIs almost exactly
>the same, if not the same. Features and functions very similar, but
>this is where they can differ (but may not) as for how they are
>implemented ... depending upon what you are trying to accomplish.
>
Was there really a question that Oracle is not as similar to DB2? We are
talking about all aspects of DB2. After all we don't just buy it to use
DML.

You buy it to run applications, and the point is that the applications
are portable ... and so are the skills ... as I said, much more so than
Oracle.

That seems to be contradicting with previous comments made by your
fellows. Go back and read them.

No it's not, and I'm not going to feed your trollism anymore.

Don't worry, you are not the only mainframer who is in the state of denial.

[Bob Jones]

"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...

EOT

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

People at IBM are smart. They know when to quit.

[Mark A]

"Bob Jones" <em***@me.notwrote in message
news:LF*****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...

Don't worry, you are not the only mainframer who is in the state of
denial.

FWIW, Larry is not a "mainframer". He works with both DB2 for LUW and DB2
for z/OS.

[Serge Rielau]

Bob Jones wrote:

"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...

>EOT

People at IBM are smart. They know when to quit.

Die Wand gibt nach...

Find a native German speaker to explain what it means...

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Serge Rielau]

The text you post agrees with what Mark, Larry and I have been saying.
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Bob Jones]

"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...

Bob Jones wrote:

>"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...

>>EOT

People at IBM are smart. They know when to quit.

Die Wand gibt nach...

Find a native German speaker to explain what it means...

I have no interest in German. This is an English forum. The use of other
languages is a lack of, shall I say, netiquette?

[Bob Jones]

>>>>Do you even have a point by stating this?

>>>>
"Would I want to purchase a mainframe and all that it requires to serve
one small
application? Probably not. But most shops that run mainframe need the
RAS
that you can only get from a MF ... and have many many apps that run on
them."

Well, apparently, you need to read my original post yet again, because
you have still not shown me where it says "mainframes can run more apps".

Please ... go troll somewhere else.

So what was your point? Please clarify in a manner that will be relevant
to the topic.

OK. I'll make one more attempt, but I ask you to reply in a thoughtful and
respectful way.

I was saying that some people look to deploy a single application while
some look to deploy large groups of many applications. It makes a lot more
sense from a TCO perspective to deploy a set or groups of many
applications that require the RAS of a mainframe environment into a
mainframe environment ... rather than to consider a mainframe to deploy
one application (depending upon how large it is, of course).

That's not specific to mainframe. That's the case in general as most people
already know. What is the relevancy to the subject?

[DA Morgan]

Bob Jones wrote:

"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...

>Bob Jones wrote:

>>"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...
EOT
People at IBM are smart. They know when to quit.

Die Wand gibt nach...

Find a native German speaker to explain what it means...

I have no interest in German. This is an English forum. The use of other
languages is a lack of, shall I say, netiquette?

Spoken like an American.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
da******@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

[Larry]

Bob Jones wrote:

>>>>>Do you even have a point by stating this?
>
>"Would I want to purchase a mainframe and all that it requires to serve
>one small
>application? Probably not. But most shops that run mainframe need the
>RAS
>that you can only get from a MF ... and have many many apps that run on
>them."

Well, apparently, you need to read my original post yet again, because
you have still not shown me where it says "mainframes can run more apps".

Please ... go troll somewhere else.

So what was your point? Please clarify in a manner that will be relevant
to the topic.

OK. I'll make one more attempt, but I ask you to reply in a thoughtful and
respectful way.

I was saying that some people look to deploy a single application while
some look to deploy large groups of many applications. It makes a lot more
sense from a TCO perspective to deploy a set or groups of many
applications that require the RAS of a mainframe environment into a
mainframe environment ... rather than to consider a mainframe to deploy
one application (depending upon how large it is, of course).

That's not specific to mainframe. That's the case in general as most people
already know. What is the relevancy to the subject?

It's specific to the mainframe ... and true to a much lesser degree for
other platforms. I'm done with this topic, Bob.

Larry E.

[Serge Rielau]

DA Morgan wrote:

Bob Jones wrote:

>"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...

>>Bob Jones wrote:
"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm.comwrote in message
news:60*************@mid.individual.net...
EOT
People at IBM are smart. They know when to quit.
Die Wand gibt nach...

Find a native German speaker to explain what it means...

I have no interest in German. This is an English forum. The use of
other languages is a lack of, shall I say, netiquette?

Spoken like an American.

As much as I love to disagree with Daniel, I can't oppose that one....

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Bob Jones]

"Larry" <la***@nospam.netwrote in message
news:47***********************@cv.net...

Bob Jones wrote:

>>>>>>Do you even have a point by stating this?
>>
>>"Would I want to purchase a mainframe and all that it requires to
>>serve one small
>>application? Probably not. But most shops that run mainframe need the
>>RAS
>>that you can only get from a MF ... and have many many apps that run
>>on
>>them."
>
>Well, apparently, you need to read my original post yet again, because
>you have still not shown me where it says "mainframes can run more
>apps".
>
>Please ... go troll somewhere else.
>
So what was your point? Please clarify in a manner that will be relevant
to the topic.

OK. I'll make one more attempt, but I ask you to reply in a thoughtful
and respectful way.

I was saying that some people look to deploy a single application while
some look to deploy large groups of many applications. It makes a lot
more sense from a TCO perspective to deploy a set or groups of many
applications that require the RAS of a mainframe environment into a
mainframe environment ... rather than to consider a mainframe to deploy
one application (depending upon how large it is, of course).

That's not specific to mainframe. That's the case in general as most
people already know. What is the relevancy to the subject?

It's specific to the mainframe ... and true to a much lesser degree for
other platforms. I'm done with this topic, Bob.

Other than being off the topic. This is just utterly untrue. How does runing
one application make any more sense on other platforms?