By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,742 Members | 1,206 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,742 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

P: n/a
Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.

I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
Peter
Jul 19 '05
Share this Question
Share on Google+
100 Replies


P: n/a
"Jim Kennedy" <ke****************************@attbi.net> wrote in message
news:KZM8b.440312$uu5.78501@sccrnsc04...

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:wG****************@news.uswest.net...
Developers should not be doing binds in a production environment.

Doesn't matter, in order for them to get the programs from one environment
to another they needed to compile their code in production to bind it.
(according to that group) It was a large company and we were just a small
part of one group. (It was a mainframe after all.) The point being DB2

was poorly designed with respect to concurrency. No reason more than one person should not be able to bind at a time. It means that "ad hoc" or dynamic sql on DB2 means everyone serializes behind it. That is very very ugly. Sure
one can administratively work around it by telling everyone not to use a
feature of the database, still it is a severe limitation.


My point of raising the issue of bind was to demonstrate what a law unto
itself IBM is, using this (warning, red-rag phrase alert!) dated concept
beyond its sell-by date.

I suppose we only comment upon it unfavourably because, er, well, because we
comment upon it unfavourably. If it were some killer piece of functionality
that set DB2 UDB above the herd, we'd talk about in awesome tones ....

A personal take on the wider debate is that DB2 UDB sites are few and far
between here in the UK, so far as our market and sales team can tell. We
come at this subject from the Informix side. Of course, many customers are
abandonning Informix because of the negative vibes they are getting from
ISVs, or maybe from IBM themselves. Will they go to DB2? Well, presumably
they chose Informix because they had some good reason not to go with the
market leader. That strategy has bitten them in the arse. Surely they
aren't going to risk obsolesence again by choosing another marginal player
in the UNIX/Linux/NT space? And, irrrespective of its merits - and I write
as a DB2 UDB certified professional - that's what DB2 UDB is in this space.
Jul 19 '05 #51

P: n/a
"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message
news:bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
My point of raising the issue of bind was to demonstrate what a law unto
itself IBM is, using this (warning, red-rag phrase alert!) dated concept
beyond its sell-by date.

I suppose we only comment upon it unfavourably because, er, well, because we comment upon it unfavourably. If it were some killer piece of functionality that set DB2 UDB above the herd, we'd talk about in awesome tones ....

A personal take on the wider debate is that DB2 UDB sites are few and far
between here in the UK, so far as our market and sales team can tell. We
come at this subject from the Informix side. Of course, many customers are abandonning Informix because of the negative vibes they are getting from
ISVs, or maybe from IBM themselves. Will they go to DB2? Well, presumably they chose Informix because they had some good reason not to go with the
market leader. That strategy has bitten them in the arse. Surely they
aren't going to risk obsolesence again by choosing another marginal player
in the UNIX/Linux/NT space? And, irrrespective of its merits - and I write as a DB2 UDB certified professional - that's what DB2 UDB is in this space.

You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the UK
DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS
SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is not
surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time.

But again, your UK experience is not the same as in other countries.
Jul 19 '05 #52

P: n/a
DBA
You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to go
out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share #'s are
much closer than you indicate.

The idea of using market share is blown way out of proportion. Other factors
being equal, would you not buy a Toyota over a Nissan if you found out that
Toyota had say 20% of the market and Nissan had 25%? Would you not buy a
Panasonic television over a Sony if you found out that Panasonic had a 30%
market share and Sony had a 25% share? The bottom line is you evaluate the
product on its merits ... you evaluate the suitability of the database to your
environment/applications ... you evaluate the vendor on its merits ... and you
make a decision. What you CARE about is not whether the market share of vendor A
is 3% more than vendor B ... you care about whether the vendor is going to be
there to support you in the future ... and whether that vendor is likely to
continue to invest in their products.

Neil Truby wrote:
"Jim Kennedy" <ke****************************@attbi.net> wrote in message
news:KZM8b.440312$uu5.78501@sccrnsc04...

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:wG****************@news.uswest.net...

Developers should not be doing binds in a production environment.

Doesn't matter, in order for them to get the programs from one environment
to another they needed to compile their code in production to bind it.
(according to that group) It was a large company and we were just a small
part of one group. (It was a mainframe after all.) The point being DB2

was
poorly designed with respect to concurrency. No reason more than one

person
should not be able to bind at a time. It means that "ad hoc" or dynamic

sql
on DB2 means everyone serializes behind it. That is very very ugly. Sure
one can administratively work around it by telling everyone not to use a
feature of the database, still it is a severe limitation.


My point of raising the issue of bind was to demonstrate what a law unto
itself IBM is, using this (warning, red-rag phrase alert!) dated concept
beyond its sell-by date.

I suppose we only comment upon it unfavourably because, er, well, because we
comment upon it unfavourably. If it were some killer piece of functionality
that set DB2 UDB above the herd, we'd talk about in awesome tones ....

A personal take on the wider debate is that DB2 UDB sites are few and far
between here in the UK, so far as our market and sales team can tell. We
come at this subject from the Informix side. Of course, many customers are
abandonning Informix because of the negative vibes they are getting from
ISVs, or maybe from IBM themselves. Will they go to DB2? Well, presumably
they chose Informix because they had some good reason not to go with the
market leader. That strategy has bitten them in the arse. Surely they
aren't going to risk obsolesence again by choosing another marginal player
in the UNIX/Linux/NT space? And, irrrespective of its merits - and I write
as a DB2 UDB certified professional - that's what DB2 UDB is in this space.


Jul 19 '05 #53

P: n/a
Peter wrote:

Please wait and see DB2 instance all of sudden disappearing from
your production system with a simple select usage. I am not
anti DB2 but I am telling you the fact.


Please - can I have DDL to create table and text of simple SELECT
statement which can remove DB2 instance from production server?
Jan M. Nelken

jasinek at attglobal dot net

Jul 19 '05 #54

P: n/a
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Mark A wrote:

Sorry to say this but the code base for Oracle is 100% identical between
platforms. I can develop on Win98, export tables, data, code, etc.
Import directly to any other platform-operating system that Oracle
supports and it runs, perfectly, with zero modifications.
I think you're confusing _Oracle_ code being identical, and the
_interface_ being identical. I highly suspect that both Oracle and DB2
for LUW have pretty much the same proportion of "identical" code
between all supported platforms vs "platform-specific" code, and that
their APIs would stay 100% the same across all supported platforms.
The only difference I can possibly think of would be things that are
path specific such as c:\temp changing to /opt/.

It isn't about insulting your intelligence ... it is a fact.


I think it's more like a misunderstanding.
Jul 19 '05 #55

P: n/a
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:91*****************@news.uswest.net...
You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the UK DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS
SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is not surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time.


To be clear, you're talking about DB2 UDB, right?
In the UK, for sure "DB2" is very popular, because of all those mainframe
installations (and because every AS400 has DB2 USB installed on it whether
used or not). But in the UNIX/Linux/NT market DB2 UDB is a marginal player
by comparison with Oracle and particularly - as you say - the fast-growing
SQL Server.
Jul 19 '05 #56

P: n/a
"DBA" <DB*@nospam.net> wrote in message news:3F***************@nospam.net...
You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share #'s are much closer than you indicate.

The idea of using market share is blown way out of proportion. Other factors being equal, would you not buy a Toyota over a Nissan if you found out that Toyota had say 20% of the market and Nissan had 25%? Would you not buy a
Panasonic television over a Sony if you found out that Panasonic had a 30%
market share and Sony had a 25% share? The bottom line is you evaluate the
product on its merits ... you evaluate the suitability of the database to your environment/applications ... you evaluate the vendor on its merits ... and you make a decision. What you CARE about is not whether the market share of vendor A is 3% more than vendor B ... you care about whether the vendor is going to be there to support you in the future ... and whether that vendor is likely to continue to invest in their products.


I don't accept your basic premise that DB2 UDB is a significant player in
the UNIX/Linix/Windows market.

True, IBM is unlikely to go out of business or be taken over. But it has
two rdbms products in the UNIX/Linux/Windows space. One, with decent
reputation for reliability, speed and all those good things you want, they
are killing through lack of (marketing) support. The other (DB2 UDB), no
matter what its undoubted merits, is a marginal player IN THIS SPACE. IBM's
strategy is to hope that customers will migrate from Informix to DB2 UDB.
The reality in my expereince is that the customers we lose are moving to
Oracle or, more and more, SQL Server, usually under prompting from their
ISVs.

My point is, I don't understand why IBM thinks that customers, forced into
a migration by the way things have panned out, are going to choose DB2 UDB
ahead of more prominent alternatives.
Jul 19 '05 #57

P: n/a
DBA wrote:
You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to
go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share
#'s are much closer than you indicate.


Not in the UK they're not.

However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose
Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons:

1. They preferred the technology.
2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered
important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get in the
way of a process.
3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating product
and not a commodity.
4. Etc.

They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had eroded
over the years.

The car analogy doesn't really work in this case, because there are other
factors that influence a car purchase. I, for example, drive a very large
BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played no part in my
decision, only the desire for a large, throbbing, thrusting ... car. Ahem.
No database vendor markets to that sector of the market, AFAIK. (Although I
haven't been playing close attention to Oracle's marketing lately, to be
fair, they have probably got this base covered too.)

However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers --
they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't give
them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your decision
because it means that you have access to more applications and resources
with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument falls down
if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by one product
of course! :o)

Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive
market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, something
I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed behind your
back.

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Jul 19 '05 #58

P: n/a
Mark A wrote:
Since version 7.2 DB2 for WIndows is an excellent product.


Websters says:

ex.cel.lent \'ek-s(*-)l*nt\ aj [ME, fr. MF, fr. L excellent-, excellens,
fr. prp. of excellere)X archaic 1: SUPERIOR 2: very good of its kind :
eminently good : FIRST-CLASS - ex.cel.lent.ly av

My forays into DB2 country have left me feeling that this is what you mean:

ad.e.quate \-kw*t\ aj [L adaequatus, pp. of adaequare to make equal, fr.
ad- + a]equare to equal - more at EQUATE 1: sufficient for a specific
requirement; specif : barely sufficie nt 2: lawfully and reasonably
sufficient - ad.e.quate.ly av

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Jul 19 '05 #59

P: n/a
I have worked on both Oracle and DB2 from Main frames to UNIX and
to NT. DB2 on Main frames is not same as on UNIX, LINUX or NT. I have
never seen disappearance of DB2 instance on OS/390. I have never seen DB2
DBA being asked to watch swap space on Main frames for binding.

I can not give you here the name of famous financial company in New York
moving there critical DB2 applications from AIX to Main frames. It sounds
strange but if you support DB2 on production servers in the same company
for 2 years, you will understand my point that company is taking business risk
by using DB2 on non-Main frames system. It is possible the situation may
change in 5-10 years.

Peter

Darin McBride <dm******@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message news:<ic***********************@news3.calgary.shaw .ca>...
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Mark A wrote:

Sorry to say this but the code base for Oracle is 100% identical between
platforms. I can develop on Win98, export tables, data, code, etc.
Import directly to any other platform-operating system that Oracle
supports and it runs, perfectly, with zero modifications.


I think you're confusing _Oracle_ code being identical, and the
_interface_ being identical. I highly suspect that both Oracle and DB2
for LUW have pretty much the same proportion of "identical" code
between all supported platforms vs "platform-specific" code, and that
their APIs would stay 100% the same across all supported platforms.
The only difference I can possibly think of would be things that are
path specific such as c:\temp changing to /opt/.

It isn't about insulting your intelligence ... it is a fact.


I think it's more like a misunderstanding.

Jul 19 '05 #60

P: n/a
> > You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the
UK
DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is not
surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time.


To be clear, you're talking about DB2 UDB, right?
In the UK, for sure "DB2" is very popular, because of all those mainframe
installations (and because every AS400 has DB2 USB installed on it whether
used or not). But in the UNIX/Linux/NT market DB2 UDB is a marginal

player by comparison with Oracle and particularly - as you say - the fast-growing
SQL Server.

Like I said, DB2 for Windows, Linux, and Unix is doing very well in the US.
I am talking about new installations. Oracle still has a strong lead in
terms of installed base on those platforms.
Jul 19 '05 #61

P: n/a
You are aware that ISVs like Siebel and Peoplesoft develop on DB2 as their
reference platform?

Larry

Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
DBA wrote:
You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to
go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share
#'s are much closer than you indicate.


Not in the UK they're not.

However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose
Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons:

1. They preferred the technology.
2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered
important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get in the
way of a process.
3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating product
and not a commodity.
4. Etc.

They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had eroded
over the years.

The car analogy doesn't really work in this case, because there are other
factors that influence a car purchase. I, for example, drive a very large
BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played no part in my
decision, only the desire for a large, throbbing, thrusting ... car. Ahem.
No database vendor markets to that sector of the market, AFAIK. (Although I
haven't been playing close attention to Oracle's marketing lately, to be
fair, they have probably got this base covered too.)

However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers --
they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't give
them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your decision
because it means that you have access to more applications and resources
with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument falls down
if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by one product
of course! :o)

Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive
market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, something
I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed behind your
back.

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche


Jul 19 '05 #62

P: n/a
DBA
Disagree. Think the car analogy is perfect. Market share is always one of the
first questions asked in making a db decision. It's one thing to ask that
question about a minor player in the industry. It's silly to ask it about IBM
and DB2. You don't do that when you buy a car, stereo, camera ... whatever. You
accept the premise that there are several good manufacturers out there who are
likely to be there to support you into the future. You did it when you bought
your car, although you won't admit it.

DBA

Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
DBA wrote:
You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to
go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share
#'s are much closer than you indicate.


Not in the UK they're not.

However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose
Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons:

1. They preferred the technology.
2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered
important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get in the
way of a process.
3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating product
and not a commodity.
4. Etc.

They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had eroded
over the years.

The car analogy doesn't really work in this case, because there are other
factors that influence a car purchase. I, for example, drive a very large
BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played no part in my
decision, only the desire for a large, throbbing, thrusting ... car. Ahem.
No database vendor markets to that sector of the market, AFAIK. (Although I
haven't been playing close attention to Oracle's marketing lately, to be
fair, they have probably got this base covered too.)

However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers --
they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't give
them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your decision
because it means that you have access to more applications and resources
with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument falls down
if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by one product
of course! :o)

Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive
market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, something
I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed behind your
back.

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche


Jul 19 '05 #63

P: n/a
DBA <DB*@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<3F***************@nospam.net>...
first questions asked in making a db decision. It's one thing to ask that
question about a minor player in the industry. It's silly to ask it about IBM
and DB2. You don't do that when you buy a car, stereo, camera ... whatever. You
accept the premise that there are several good manufacturers out there who are
likely to be there to support you into the future.


Just like what happened with OS2...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Jul 19 '05 #64

P: n/a
Obnoxio The Clown wrote:

[SNIP]
very large BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played
[SNIP]
However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party
developers -- they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform
that doesn't give them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this
[SNIP]


How horrible; OTC talking about his very small willy, and broad exposure, in
the same message. I need an aspirin and a good lie down....
Jul 19 '05 #65

P: n/a
Hi Larry!

ISVs like Siebel and Peoplesoft develop on DB2, it sounds great
but can you tell me what all features of DB2 that they are using other than
backup and restore. In DB2 for web enabled application to communicate,
you need IBM MQ series and 5-10 experts for MQ administration and
development work. IBM doesn't tell the actual cost to buy and maintain
MQ to the customers during initial sales meeting.

I think INFORMIX is a better and stable product of IBM on non
Main Frames system. In DB2, when instance disappear the simple
soution is to resrat it by db2start command. There are many
companies that can effort it in production so they will not
mind it at all.

Peter

"Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-79573.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Obnoxio The Clown wrote:

[SNIP]
very large BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played
[SNIP]
However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party
developers -- they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform
that doesn't give them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this
[SNIP]


How horrible; OTC talking about his very small willy, and broad exposure, in
the same message. I need an aspirin and a good lie down....

Jul 19 '05 #66

P: n/a
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<Os***************@news.uswest.net>...
In the UK, for sure "DB2" is very popular, because of all those mainframe
installations (and because every AS400 has DB2 USB installed on it whether
used or not). But in the UNIX/Linux/NT market DB2 UDB is a marginal

player
by comparison with Oracle and particularly - as you say - the fast-growing
SQL Server.

Like I said, DB2 for Windows, Linux, and Unix is doing very well in the US.
I am talking about new installations. Oracle still has a strong lead in
terms of installed base on those platforms.


Think that's pretty much the picture in the UK too. There's certainly
not a shortage of jobs.
DG
Jul 19 '05 #67

P: n/a
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1063490783.919594@yasure>...
So no attempt was made or intended to insult you, IBM, DB2, or anything
else. What was made was a staight-forward statement of fact based on my
years working with DB2
Your subjective claims ("low" number of...) were dubious, your single
hard claim (need for C compiler on production box), bogus.
and statements confirmed by others here in the DB2 forum.


Oh come on! Type "earth is flat" into Google and you'll find people
who support that point of view. Everyone from experts to total
incompetents post to computing forums. Next time, do try being
selective when using the Internet.
DG
Jul 19 '05 #68

P: n/a
wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73*************************@posting.google.c om>...
db******@hotmail.com (Database Guy) wrote in message news:<7f**************************@posting.google. com>...
C'mon, we're talking here about people who believe in
a company [Oracle] that writes its own "independent reports"

and IBM doesn't do that?


Not to my knowledge. Tell us then, when did IBM ever write its own
report and issue it as an "independent" report through some 2-bit
company?
DG
Jul 19 '05 #69

P: n/a
pe****************@yahoo.com (Peter) wrote in message news:<39**************************@posting.google. com>...
I am only asking you to wait and watch on
production server of DB2 ,instance disappearance
because of select SQL query on a small table.
Peter


Why won't you provide the APAR reference?
DG
Jul 19 '05 #70

P: n/a
Peter wrote:
I think INFORMIX is a better and stable product of IBM on non
Main Frames system. In DB2, when instance disappear the simple
soution is to resrat it by db2start command. There are many
companies that can effort it in production so they will not
mind it at all.


The instance doesn't disappear - the processes disappear. There's a
difference, and that's the difference that I think has confused a
number of people ;-)

In short, you managed to get DB2 to crash.

In DB2 v8, there is a new feature called the Fault Monitor which can
detect a crash and restart the server for you automatically. This may
alleviate (but not eliminate) your problem.

All that said, there are a number of people who would be interested in
the PMR number for this problem to see what they can do about getting
it fixed even without the Fault Monitor.
Jul 19 '05 #71

P: n/a
Database Guy wrote:
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1063490783.919594@yasure>...

So no attempt was made or intended to insult you, IBM, DB2, or anything
else. What was made was a staight-forward statement of fact based on my
years working with DB2


Your subjective claims ("low" number of...) were dubious, your single
hard claim (need for C compiler on production box), bogus.

Absolutely not. You must recompile on the production box, or should I
add a clone of the production box. Which is really the same thing. You
can not compile on AIX 5L and deploy on OS/390. And if you can, now,
please point me to a link at ibm.com that confirms this change.

Thanks.

--
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)
Jul 19 '05 #72

P: n/a

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1063673747.987366@yasure...
Database Guy wrote:
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1063490783.919594@yasure>...
So no attempt was made or intended to insult you, IBM, DB2, or anything
else. What was made was a staight-forward statement of fact based on my
years working with DB2


Your subjective claims ("low" number of...) were dubious, your single
hard claim (need for C compiler on production box), bogus.

Absolutely not. You must recompile on the production box, or should I
add a clone of the production box.


Your development environment should contain a suitable clone of the
production box -- the same hardware (but perhaps on a smaller scale),
running the same versions of the operating system and DB2. In this case,
you develop on the development box, and then just install the final
executables and SQL language elements on the production server, when they're
ready for production.

If your development environment does not have a clone of your production
box, then your production environment is just a mere extension of your
development environment -- a risky proposition, at best -- and will be
subject to the possiblity of disastrous failure, regardless of your choice
of OS or RDBMS.

--
Matt Emmerton
Jul 19 '05 #73

P: n/a
Matthew Emmerton wrote:
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1063673747.987366@yasure...

Database Guy wrote:
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message

news:<1063490783.919594@yasure>...

So no attempt was made or intended to insult you, IBM, DB2, or anything
else. What was made was a staight-forward statement of fact based on my
years working with DB2
Your subjective claims ("low" number of...) were dubious, your single
hard claim (need for C compiler on production box), bogus.

Absolutely not. You must recompile on the production box, or should I
add a clone of the production box.


Your development environment should contain a suitable clone of the
production box -- the same hardware (but perhaps on a smaller scale),
running the same versions of the operating system and DB2. In this case,
you develop on the development box, and then just install the final
executables and SQL language elements on the production server, when they're
ready for production.

If your development environment does not have a clone of your production
box, then your production environment is just a mere extension of your
development environment -- a risky proposition, at best -- and will be
subject to the possiblity of disastrous failure, regardless of your choice
of OS or RDBMS.

--
Matt Emmerton

Great in theory. But consider this ... I want to build an application
and sell it to customers at ten different locations.

My choice ... buy my own Windows, AIX, AS/400, and OS/390 machines
matching my potential client's environments ... or ... put a C compiler
on their box and recompile. It isn't that big a deal ... but it is a
fact. And it is a fact that is not true with other commercial RDBMS
products. Lets not beat this thing to death. It is just a fact of life
with DB2.

--
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)
Jul 19 '05 #74

P: n/a

"Database Guy" <db******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<Os***************@news.uswest.net>...
In the UK, for sure "DB2" is very popular, because of all those mainframe installations (and because every AS400 has DB2 USB installed on it whether used or not). But in the UNIX/Linux/NT market DB2 UDB is a marginal

player
by comparison with Oracle and particularly - as you say - the fast-growing SQL Server.

Like I said, DB2 for Windows, Linux, and Unix is doing very well in the US. I am talking about new installations. Oracle still has a strong lead in
terms of installed base on those platforms.


Think that's pretty much the picture in the UK too. There's certainly
not a shortage of jobs.


Can you send me a list, or tell me where I can get one?
There's a five pound book token with your name on it if you will ...

--
Neil Truby t:01932 724027
Director m:07798 811708
Ardenta Limited e:ne********@ardenta.com
Jul 19 '05 #75

P: n/a
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in
news:1063677908.937277@yasure:
Great in theory. But consider this ... I want to build an
application and sell it to customers at ten different locations.

My choice ... buy my own Windows, AIX, AS/400, and OS/390 machines
matching my potential client's environments ... or ... put a C
compiler on their box and recompile. It isn't that big a deal ...


You're missing a fundamental step in the software life cycle: QA.

You're going to need to QA your application across the different
hardware platforms which means you're going to need to have that
hardware at your shop. If you don't, you're asking for trouble.

You do the above whether you are using DB2, Oracle, etc. It turns out
that DB2 leverages that QA hardware for application compilation. :)
--
Pablo Sanchez, Blueoak Database Engineering
http://www.blueoakdb.com
Jul 19 '05 #76

P: n/a
Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in
news:1063677908.937277@yasure:
Great in theory. But consider this ... I want to build an
application and sell it to customers at ten different locations.

My choice ... buy my own Windows, AIX, AS/400, and OS/390 machines
matching my potential client's environments ... or ... put a C
compiler on their box and recompile. It isn't that big a deal ...


You're missing a fundamental step in the software life cycle: QA.

You're going to need to QA your application across the different
hardware platforms which means you're going to need to have that
hardware at your shop. If you don't, you're asking for trouble.

You do the above whether you are using DB2, Oracle, etc. It turns out
that DB2 leverages that QA hardware for application compilation. :)

Only if it matters. Consider a situation where it is irrelevant. In
other words ... where there are no
differences ... same source code, same compiled code. Then it is a minor
consideration.

I missed nothing.

--
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)
Jul 19 '05 #77

P: n/a
How could a select can make a system crash? I saw it before, just because
DBA doesn't know how to load the table.
The table should have check pending status.

Unless you plan to do something exceptional, I expect all DB are almost the
same for all function.

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:pr****************@news.uswest.net...
"Peter" <pe****************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39**************************@posting.google.c om...
Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.

I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
Peter


Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.


Jul 19 '05 #78

P: n/a
Hi John,

If you have not seen DB2 on non Main Frames system crashing with
a simple select query, please wait I am sure you will see it.

We are not discussing here db2 load that require check pending status
clearance.

If you have ever worked on OS/2, you will get my point. There are many
participants in this discussion that share the same thought. Some disagree
but it is possible that it may improve in next 5-6 years. It has taken
quite a few years to IBM to come up with a stable version of OS/2.
Peter

"johnlinh" <jo******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b0*******************@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net>...
How could a select can make a system crash? I saw it before, just because
DBA doesn't know how to load the table.
The table should have check pending status.

Unless you plan to do something exceptional, I expect all DB are almost the
same for all function.

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:pr****************@news.uswest.net...
"Peter" <pe****************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39**************************@posting.google.c om...
Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.

I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
Peter


Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.

Jul 19 '05 #79

P: n/a

"Peter" <pe****************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39*************************@posting.google.co m...
Hi John,

If you have not seen DB2 on non Main Frames system crashing with
a simple select query, please wait I am sure you will see it.

We are not discussing here db2 load that require check pending status
clearance.

If you have ever worked on OS/2, you will get my point. There are many
participants in this discussion that share the same thought. Some disagree
but it is possible that it may improve in next 5-6 years. It has taken
quite a few years to IBM to come up with a stable version of OS/2.
Peter

DB2 is quite stable on Unix, Linux, and Windows. But it is not perfect. If
you have a problem, and open an APAR with IBM support, I believe that they
will fix it (assuming it is an IBM problem, and not a DBA problem).

You have been asked multiple times for an APAR for your problem that had
with DB2, but have failed to come up with one.

As to how long it will take for DB2 to become more stable, maybe it is less
time than you think. A significant number of people who report DB2 problems
on this and other forums are seriously back-leveled in terms of FixPaks.
Jul 19 '05 #80

P: n/a
Larry Edelstein wrote:
But the point
is this: there is no way that companies of that size would bet their
business on a database that is not solid, stable, bulletproof, and
competitive.
How many companies bet their business on Windows NT? Does that make it
solid, stable, bulletproof and competitive?
It boils down to a fundamental difference in strategy. Companies like
Oracle promote a strategy that moves almost EVERYTHING into the database.
Companies like IBM believe that they would rather allow you to select the
product/component that you use together with your database so that not
only do you have the choice ... but you can select the best-of-breed in
technology.


Like Tivoli, Websphere, MQ, Content Manager, Rational... Or Lotus...
fnaar...

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Jul 19 '05 #81

P: n/a
Anton Versteeg wrote:
hmm, strange, my DB2 production system on AIX hasn't crashed for 3 years
now.
I guess your comapny was right :-)


So _you're_ the one. Please share with the rest of the world how you do it?

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche
Jul 19 '05 #82

P: n/a
OK Peter.

Can I ask why you continue to trash DB2 without providing any substantiation that this supposed crash actually
happened? What are you afraid of? If, in fact, this did happen and was found to be a real problem with DB2, what
possible motivation could you have for not disclosing the details ... unless it really didn't happen?

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi John,

If you have not seen DB2 on non Main Frames system crashing with
a simple select query, please wait I am sure you will see it.

We are not discussing here db2 load that require check pending status
clearance.

If you have ever worked on OS/2, you will get my point. There are many
participants in this discussion that share the same thought. Some disagree
but it is possible that it may improve in next 5-6 years. It has taken
quite a few years to IBM to come up with a stable version of OS/2.

Peter

"johnlinh" <jo******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b0*******************@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net>...
How could a select can make a system crash? I saw it before, just because
DBA doesn't know how to load the table.
The table should have check pending status.

Unless you plan to do something exceptional, I expect all DB are almost the
same for all function.

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:pr****************@news.uswest.net...
"Peter" <pe****************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39**************************@posting.google.c om...
> Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
> The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.
>
> I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.
>
>
> Peter

Maybe it's a problem with the DBA's.


Jul 19 '05 #83

P: n/a
Larry Edelstein wrote:
Peter,

I cannot answer your questions on the details on what specific features of DB2 ISVs like Siebel, SAP,
Peoplesoft, etc. use. Perhaps someone in vendor relations or at the lab can shed more light on this. But
the point is this: there is no way that companies of that size would bet their business on a database
that is not solid, stable, bulletproof, and competitive. Not only do they use DB2 as their reference
platform, but they use it to run their own internal systems. They have a choice. Why don't they use
Oracle or SQL Server?

And someone posted here in the last day or two the question ... why
aren't there any classes currently being offered by SAP on DB2 but
offered on Oracle. Anyone can pick any single thing, hold it over their
head, point to it, and then try to leverage it into a claim that A is
better than B because .... blah blah blah blah blah blah balh ... Who cares?

Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
Series or the SuperBowl?

The truth is that if there was a significant difference ... one that was
pure black and white ... this discussion would have ended long ago and
everyone would be in one camp or the other. The fact that little things
such as cited in this thread are being grabbed and put forward like they
are some divine revelation means the differences are shades of gray.

About the only interesting thing here is that if one compares the
content of the usenet groups for each of the major RDBMS products ...
The Oracle group almost never contains a word, certainly a negative
word, about DB2 that didn't start off being posted in a DB2 or Informix
group and cross-posted. And the one person that kept posting negative
stuff about SQL Server got shouted down and hasn't reposted it in a long
time. The Sybase people act like everyone else just about doesn't exist
and focus on their product and their customers. The MS SQL Server group
occassionally makes mention of Oracle or another product in relation to
migration projects but other than that they seem to do a pretty good job
of sticking to their product and trying to be helpful to those asking
questions.

It seems to me there is a vein of insecurity in the DB2 group that is
continually mined by people heck-bent on inflating their egos, or curing
their sense of inadequacy, by putting down another product. Knock it
off. If your product was signicantly better you'd be building better
applications, better web sites, and others would look at your work and
say "Oh wow that's great." I think it is time to stop trying to climb
out of whatever emotional pit you are in on the back of other vendors
and see if you can collectively help each other to produce something of
value that will make other sit up and take notice. That something is not
a TCP benchmark. That something is not so-and-so uses it as a reference
platform.

Take a look at what the local DB2 user group in my region of the US
offers as evidence of their capability:
http://www.db2seattle.org/
Not even so much as a hot link. Not even so much as an email address.
Definitely not a real-time interface with a database.

I've worked for years in DB2 and quite frankly I find this level of
discourse here embarrasing:
I would hope many of you would too.
And then do something about it.

--
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)

Jul 19 '05 #84

P: n/a
Daniel,

The point on use of a database as a reference platform went right by you ... but I fully expected that as you
seem hell-bent on trashing IBM and DB2. I'm not even sure it's worth my time clarifying it ... because you
will just turn it around and put your own little twist on it to make it seem like it's not valid. But ... no
responsible executive is going to cut a deal on the 17th hole ... no matter how much it is sweetened ... that
is going to endanger his company. People from large companies like that buy software to run their businesses
on and to develop on if and only if they feel that the software is worthy of their investment and will stand
up to the test. Would you purchase a second-rate, inferior car with a questionable safety record to transport
your 3 year-old in if the salesman offered you World Series tickets on the 17th hole?

It's a way to prove viability, stability, and integrity ... it's called a REFERENCE ... and potential Oracle
customers usually like them also by the way.

The problem here is not insecurity on our part. The problem here is people like you who come onto the DB2
newsgroup and trash DB2 with unfounded and false claims. Do you see any of us making postings like that on
any Oracle newsgroups? What do you expect to happen when you do this? If someone took one of your classes and
trashed it making false claims about something you taught or the way you taught it ... and you knew it to be
false ... or you knew it to be something that was being looked at from a biased point of view ... wouldn't
you try to defend yourself ... or wouldn't you at least try to convince that person that if they took more of
a balanced view, they might feel differently?

If you're so unbiased and simply making innocent critiques of DB2, I'm still waiting for you to post your 10
biggest faults of Oracle 9i.

Larry Edelstein

Daniel Morgan wrote:
Larry Edelstein wrote:
Peter,

I cannot answer your questions on the details on what specific features of DB2 ISVs like Siebel, SAP,
Peoplesoft, etc. use. Perhaps someone in vendor relations or at the lab can shed more light on this. But
the point is this: there is no way that companies of that size would bet their business on a database
that is not solid, stable, bulletproof, and competitive. Not only do they use DB2 as their reference
platform, but they use it to run their own internal systems. They have a choice. Why don't they use
Oracle or SQL Server?

And someone posted here in the last day or two the question ... why
aren't there any classes currently being offered by SAP on DB2 but
offered on Oracle. Anyone can pick any single thing, hold it over their
head, point to it, and then try to leverage it into a claim that A is
better than B because .... blah blah blah blah blah blah balh ... Who cares?

Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
Series or the SuperBowl?

The truth is that if there was a significant difference ... one that was
pure black and white ... this discussion would have ended long ago and
everyone would be in one camp or the other. The fact that little things
such as cited in this thread are being grabbed and put forward like they
are some divine revelation means the differences are shades of gray.

About the only interesting thing here is that if one compares the
content of the usenet groups for each of the major RDBMS products ...
The Oracle group almost never contains a word, certainly a negative
word, about DB2 that didn't start off being posted in a DB2 or Informix
group and cross-posted. And the one person that kept posting negative
stuff about SQL Server got shouted down and hasn't reposted it in a long
time. The Sybase people act like everyone else just about doesn't exist
and focus on their product and their customers. The MS SQL Server group
occassionally makes mention of Oracle or another product in relation to
migration projects but other than that they seem to do a pretty good job
of sticking to their product and trying to be helpful to those asking
questions.

It seems to me there is a vein of insecurity in the DB2 group that is
continually mined by people heck-bent on inflating their egos, or curing
their sense of inadequacy, by putting down another product. Knock it
off. If your product was signicantly better you'd be building better
applications, better web sites, and others would look at your work and
say "Oh wow that's great." I think it is time to stop trying to climb
out of whatever emotional pit you are in on the back of other vendors
and see if you can collectively help each other to produce something of
value that will make other sit up and take notice. That something is not
a TCP benchmark. That something is not so-and-so uses it as a reference
platform.

Take a look at what the local DB2 user group in my region of the US
offers as evidence of their capability:
http://www.db2seattle.org/
Not even so much as a hot link. Not even so much as an email address.
Definitely not a real-time interface with a database.

I've worked for years in DB2 and quite frankly I find this level of
discourse here embarrasing:
I would hope many of you would too.
And then do something about it.

--
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)


Jul 19 '05 #85

P: n/a
Larry Edelstein <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in
news:3F***************@us.ibm.com:
[ common sense snipped ]


Larry and group, you're wasting your time with Daniel. He's a bit
'kooky' (in the Usenet definition) but not quite there. I think he
needs to simmer a bit more ...

http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/K/kook.html

How could anyone forget Colin James III?

http://www.vrx.net/NET.SCANDAL/reverend
--
Pablo Sanchez, Blueoak Database Engineering
http://www.blueoakdb.com
Jul 19 '05 #86

P: n/a
Larry Edelstein wrote:
Daniel,

The point on use of a database as a reference platform went right by you ...

No it didn't. I've been in this industry since 1969. Oracle uses Sun as
a reference platform. Does that mean everyone goes
out and buys Sun hardware? Of course not. I happen to be running AIX 5L
thank you very much.

The other thing that has not escaped me is the ability to obfuscate,
change the topic, bob, weave, and dance at the heretical
thought that DB2 is not significantly better, or worse than one of its
competitors. I find that sad.

--
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)

Jul 19 '05 #87

P: n/a
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
Larry Edelstein wrote: Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
Series or the SuperBowl?


How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!
Jul 19 '05 #88

P: n/a
Hi Larry!

Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you should not
take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.

I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than Microsoft
Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem that was
resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market before that.

If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work on one
install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance and when
you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It simply forgets
and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that and forgetting
why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad both. As
a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor developers
for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table with
a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details; there is
nothing in the query other than select on one table with one condition
on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround.


Peter

"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
Larry Edelstein wrote:

Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
Series or the SuperBowl?


How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!

Jul 19 '05 #89

P: n/a
Peter ... I have worked with many customers for more than two years who have never experienced this problem.

You are still not providing any specifics or details on this. What are you afraid of? At this point, I must
assume that this never happened. I'm sorry. It doesn't take much to provide evidence.

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi Larry!

Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you should not
take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.

I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than Microsoft
Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem that was
resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market before that.

If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work on one
install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance and when
you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It simply forgets
and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that and forgetting
why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad both. As
a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor developers
for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table with
a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details; there is
nothing in the query other than select on one table with one condition
on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround.

Peter

"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
Larry Edelstein wrote:

Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
Series or the SuperBowl?


How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!


Jul 19 '05 #90

P: n/a
Larry Edelstein wrote:
OK Peter.

Can I ask why you

[...]

Peter is trolling, and successfully so.

Maybe this thread can come to an end once everyone realizes that.

Bye bye :)

Jul 19 '05 #91

P: n/a
Hi Larry!

There is a difference between in-house DBA and seeing the response of every
select Statement on production and being highly paid IBM on-call consultant.
No company will contact IBM consultant for db2start.

I wish you should have taken it like Bill Gates took new Windows release crash
in a big conference. He immediately admitted developers have to fix the code.
Peter

Larry Edelstein <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:<3F***************@us.ibm.com>...
Peter ... I have worked with many customers for more than two years who have never experienced this problem.

You are still not providing any specifics or details on this. What are you afraid of? At this point, I must
assume that this never happened. I'm sorry. It doesn't take much to provide evidence.

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi Larry!

Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you should not
take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.

I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than Microsoft
Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem that was
resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market before that.

If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work on one
install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance and when
you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It simply forgets
and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that and forgetting
why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad both. As
a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor developers
for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table with
a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details; there is
nothing in the query other than select on one table with one condition
on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround.

Peter

"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
> Larry Edelstein wrote: Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
> someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
> company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
> existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
> Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
> sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
> the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
> Series or the SuperBowl?

How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!

Jul 19 '05 #92

P: n/a
Peter,

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

No one ever said anything about consultants. When you have a problem ... especially a serious one like the one you
describe ... you open up a case with IBM and find out what it takes to fix it!

Peter ... several people on this newsgroup have offered to help get this escalated for you ... but you have not
provided any additional information. Please don't make it sound like IBM has not listened to you or isn't willing to
do anything about this.

I am very sorry ... but as I said ... I am going to have to assume that this didn't really happen. This will be my
last post responding to you, unless you can provide some more details and/or more information.

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi Larry!

There is a difference between in-house DBA and seeing the response of every
select Statement on production and being highly paid IBM on-call consultant.
No company will contact IBM consultant for db2start.

I wish you should have taken it like Bill Gates took new Windows release crash
in a big conference. He immediately admitted developers have to fix the code.

Peter

Larry Edelstein <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:<3F***************@us.ibm.com>...
Peter ... I have worked with many customers for more than two years who have never experienced this problem.

You are still not providing any specifics or details on this. What are you afraid of? At this point, I must
assume that this never happened. I'm sorry. It doesn't take much to provide evidence.

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi Larry!

Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you should not
take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.

I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than Microsoft
Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem that was
resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market before that.

If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work on one
install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance and when
you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It simply forgets
and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that and forgetting
why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad both. As
a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor developers
for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table with
a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details; there is
nothing in the query other than select on one table with one condition
on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround.

Peter

"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
> > Larry Edelstein wrote:

> > Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what
> > someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a
> > company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their
> > existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses?
> > Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a
> > sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on
> > the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World
> > Series or the SuperBowl?
>
> How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!


Jul 19 '05 #93

P: n/a

"Larry Edelstein" <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@us.ibm.com...
Peter,

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

No one ever said anything about consultants. When you have a problem ... especially a serious one like the one you describe ... you open up a case with IBM and find out what it takes to fix it!
Peter ... several people on this newsgroup have offered to help get this escalated for you ... but you have not provided any additional information. Please don't make it sound like IBM has not listened to you or isn't willing to do anything about this.

I am very sorry ... but as I said ... I am going to have to assume that this didn't really happen. This will be my last post responding to you, unless you can provide some more details and/or more information.
Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi Larry!

There is a difference between in-house DBA and seeing the response of every
select Statement on production and being highly paid IBM on-call consultant. No company will contact IBM consultant for db2start.

I wish you should have taken it like Bill Gates took new Windows release crash in a big conference. He immediately admitted developers have to fix the code.
Peter

Larry Edelstein <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message

news:<3F***************@us.ibm.com>...
Peter ... I have worked with many customers for more than two years who have never experienced this problem.
You are still not providing any specifics or details on this. What are you afraid of? At this point, I must assume that this never happened. I'm sorry. It doesn't take much to provide evidence.
Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:

> Hi Larry!
>
> Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you should not > take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.
>
> I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than Microsoft > Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem that was > resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market before that. >
> If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work on one > install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance and when > you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It simply forgets > and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that and forgetting > why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad both. As > a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor developers > for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table with
> a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details; there is > nothing in the query other than select on one table with one condition > on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround.
>
> Peter
>
> "Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > "Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
> > > Larry Edelstein wrote:

> > > Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what > > > someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a > > > company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their > > > existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses? > > > Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a > > > sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on > > > the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World > > > Series or the SuperBowl?
> >
> > How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!


Larry,
While Peter's problem might be a canard(probably is), maybe he does not
understand what you mean.

Peter,
What Larry is trying to say is that you need to provide more information.
If you went to a medical Dr and said I have pain and did not give any
further information, such as location, then the Dr. would not be able to do
much for you. So can you tell us what select statement crashes DB2 in your
environment. Could you also tell us what Operating System DB2 is running on
and if possible the version of DB2? What would be very nice is what steps
you have to perform to cause this crash. If you can't even tell us these
things then it calls into question your integrity.
Jim
Jul 19 '05 #94

P: n/a
I work for a big financial company and I can understand Larry and you.
To give you the select statement and DB2 release number and platforms
detail will violate my employment agreement. They are moving the
critical DB2/UNIX application to OS/390.

I have seen it twice once on AIX and second time on LINUX system.
Let us start using DB2 UDB as in-house DBA and you will see yourself
disappearance of DB2 instance. It is not developers fault but
as work around you have to blame development group.

Peter


"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-down_with_spammers@no_spam.comcast.net> wrote in message news:<aPNbb.548237$YN5.371362@sccrnsc01>...
"Larry Edelstein" <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@us.ibm.com...
Peter,

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

No one ever said anything about consultants. When you have a problem ...

especially a serious one like the one you
describe ... you open up a case with IBM and find out what it takes to fix

it!

Peter ... several people on this newsgroup have offered to help get this

escalated for you ... but you have not
provided any additional information. Please don't make it sound like IBM

has not listened to you or isn't willing to
do anything about this.

I am very sorry ... but as I said ... I am going to have to assume that

this didn't really happen. This will be my
last post responding to you, unless you can provide some more details

and/or more information.

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:
Hi Larry!

There is a difference between in-house DBA and seeing the response of every select Statement on production and being highly paid IBM on-call consultant. No company will contact IBM consultant for db2start.

I wish you should have taken it like Bill Gates took new Windows release crash in a big conference. He immediately admitted developers have to fix the code.
Peter

Larry Edelstein <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:<3F***************@us.ibm.com>... > Peter ... I have worked with many customers for more than two years who have never experienced this problem. >
> You are still not providing any specifics or details on this. What are you afraid of? At this point, I must > assume that this never happened. I'm sorry. It doesn't take much to provide evidence. >
> Larry Edelstein
>
> Peter wrote:
>
> > Hi Larry!
> >
> > Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you should not > > take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.
> >
> > I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than Microsoft > > Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem that was > > resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market before that. > >
> > If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work on one > > install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance and when > > you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It simply forgets > > and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that and forgetting > > why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad both. As > > a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor developers > > for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table with
> > a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details; there is > > nothing in the query other than select on one table with one condition > > on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > "Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > > "Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
> > > > Larry Edelstein wrote: > > > Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really believe what > > > > someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the CFO of a > > > > company write a big check? Change their infrastructure? Migrate their > > > > existing applications? Get a major university to start offering courses? > > > > Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were cut a > > > > sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision was made on > > > > the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to the World > > > > Series or the SuperBowl?
> > >
> > > How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!


Larry,
While Peter's problem might be a canard(probably is), maybe he does not
understand what you mean.

Peter,
What Larry is trying to say is that you need to provide more information.
If you went to a medical Dr and said I have pain and did not give any
further information, such as location, then the Dr. would not be able to do
much for you. So can you tell us what select statement crashes DB2 in your
environment. Could you also tell us what Operating System DB2 is running on
and if possible the version of DB2? What would be very nice is what steps
you have to perform to cause this crash. If you can't even tell us these
things then it calls into question your integrity.
Jim

Jul 19 '05 #95

P: n/a
OK - THAT'S ENOUGH!!!

This BS has been going on for nearly 2 weeks. Don't you have to go mow the
lawn or something? Put the keyboard down, get your hand off it (I'm not
talking about the mouse) and get outside into the real world for a change.

Shut-T.F.up !!!

Don't you know The Golden Rule of Netnews? "Arguing on the Internet is like
running in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you are still retarded"
Jul 19 '05 #96

P: n/a
Peter is full of it. Into the kill file
"Peter" <pe****************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39**************************@posting.google.c om...
I work for a big financial company and I can understand Larry and you.
To give you the select statement and DB2 release number and platforms
detail will violate my employment agreement. They are moving the
critical DB2/UNIX application to OS/390.

I have seen it twice once on AIX and second time on LINUX system.
Let us start using DB2 UDB as in-house DBA and you will see yourself
disappearance of DB2 instance. It is not developers fault but
as work around you have to blame development group.

Peter


"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-down_with_spammers@no_spam.comcast.net> wrote in

message news:<aPNbb.548237$YN5.371362@sccrnsc01>...
"Larry Edelstein" <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@us.ibm.com...
Peter,

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

No one ever said anything about consultants. When you have a problem ....
especially a serious one like the one you
describe ... you open up a case with IBM and find out what it takes to
fix it!

Peter ... several people on this newsgroup have offered to help get
this escalated for you ... but you have not
provided any additional information. Please don't make it sound like
IBM has not listened to you or isn't willing to
do anything about this.

I am very sorry ... but as I said ... I am going to have to assume
that this didn't really happen. This will be my
last post responding to you, unless you can provide some more details

and/or more information.

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:

> Hi Larry!
>
> There is a difference between in-house DBA and seeing the response
of every
> select Statement on production and being highly paid IBM on-call

consultant.
> No company will contact IBM consultant for db2start.
>
> I wish you should have taken it like Bill Gates took new Windows
release crash
> in a big conference. He immediately admitted developers have to fix
the code.
>
> Peter
>
> Larry Edelstein <ls*****@us.ibm.com> wrote in message

news:<3F***************@us.ibm.com>...
> > Peter ... I have worked with many customers for more than two
years who have never experienced this problem.
> >
> > You are still not providing any specifics or details on this. What
are you afraid of? At this point, I must
> > assume that this never happened. I'm sorry. It doesn't take much
to provide evidence.
> >
> > Larry Edelstein
> >
> > Peter wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Larry!
> > >
> > > Regarding your comment on continue to trash DB2, I wish you
should not
> > > take it in negative way. I find same problem in DB2 as in OS/2.
> > >
> > > I have worked on OS/2 and technically it is far superior than

Microsoft
> > > Windows. It did have same issue of all of sudden crashed problem

that was
> > > resolved in few years. Unfortunately MS already had the market

before that.
> > >
> > > If you find my info is incorrect, I am just asking you to work
on one
> > > install of DB2 for 2 years. You will see instance disappearance
and when
> > > you type db2start; it starts as if nothing has happened. It
simply forgets
> > > and forgives it. I have never seen database starting like that
and forgetting
> > > why it crashed all of sudden in production. It is good and bad
both. As
> > > a DBA you have to start instance again only and blame poor

developers
> > > for wrong SQL statements. Poor guy only did select on a table
with > > > a simple where clause. I have been asked to give query details;

there is
> > > nothing in the query other than select on one table with one

condition
> > > on where clause. Simply blame the DB2 developers as a workaround. > > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > "Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote in message

news:<bk************@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:1064018434.923612@yasure...
> > > > > Larry Edelstein wrote:

> > > > > Is this really going to change anyone's mind? Do you really

believe what
> > > > > someone uses as a reference platform is going to make the

CFO of a
> > > > > company write a big check? Change their infrastructure?
Migrate their
> > > > > existing applications? Get a major university to start
offering courses?
> > > > > Maybe they use it as a reference platform because they were
cut a
> > > > > sweetheart deal? How can anyone possibly know what decision
was made on
> > > > > the 17th hole after a few martinis and a pair of tickets to
the World
> > > > > Series or the SuperBowl?
> > > >
> > > > How terribly cynical of you, Daniel!


Larry,
While Peter's problem might be a canard(probably is), maybe he does not
understand what you mean.

Peter,
What Larry is trying to say is that you need to provide more information. If you went to a medical Dr and said I have pain and did not give any
further information, such as location, then the Dr. would not be able to do much for you. So can you tell us what select statement crashes DB2 in your environment. Could you also tell us what Operating System DB2 is running on and if possible the version of DB2? What would be very nice is what steps you have to perform to cause this crash. If you can't even tell us these things then it calls into question your integrity.
Jim

Jul 19 '05 #97

P: n/a

"Peter" <pe****************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39**************************@posting.google.c om...
Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
The bottom line is when you do select, the system crash.

I think it may take 4-5 years for DB2 to reach Oracle standard.


I know. I once had a database crash. Can't remember what I did or which
database it was but it makes you think doesn't it.
Jul 19 '05 #98

P: n/a
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Date: 2003-09-24 16:24:22 PST
Nat wrote:
We have Oracle 8.0.5 running on a Sun 4500 with solaris 2.6 OS.
My production database has gone down twice because of the following
error detalied at the bottom

Our Oracle version is dessuported (nothing I can do about it) so I
would appreciate any clue of how to deal with this problem.
I read in one posting that this error has something to do with one
session lossing communication or something like that. From the
documentation below I couldn't even figure what session or user or
procedure caused the crash

Leverage this situation and follow Brian's and Oracle's advice. Use this
as an excuse to upgrade
to something that will be good for your company and good for your resume.

--
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)
Jul 19 '05 #99

P: n/a
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Date: 2003-09-11 07:47:26 PST
T0GGLe wrote:
Hi,

can someone please explain to me why oracle crashes on my oracle817
cluster server (W2k) system when i change tehh sys password? The first
time this happened was when i changed it using dba studio.
I thought that this might be a problem with that software however I've
just tried changing the password at the command line (sqlplus) after
having recreated the password file and hey presto the entire system
has crashed and won't come back up again.

Now I realise that the internal account is hard coded into the system
and needs manually putting back in, in fail safe manager, but is there
anywhere for the sys passwrod to go?
You realize incorrectly. It is not.
I'm now on the phone to oracle support to try to get the system back
up and running but this is doing my head in. For god's sake why didn't
we use sql7 or above????????? That works!

So you'd have something to whine about. Of course MS products never
crash. Never have problems.
And everything is always perfect. It is raining in Redmond Washington at
this very second. How can that
be? How can that be? I know ... I'm there.

The crash has nothing to do with changing the password. What I'd like to
see is an actual example
of what you are doing to change that password. I suspect the real cause
is that you are not doing what
you think you are doing, not doing it the right way, or have some other
processes running your aren't
telling us about.

--
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)

[Whereas, if DB2 were to go wrong...]
Jul 19 '05 #100

100 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.