Re: Senior Oracle DBA now Learning Informix by Request of Company:IThought Informix was Dead?

Thanks for all of the replies. This is helping. Is the following correct? onarchive == rman What is ontape then? Should you use ontape or onarchive? Informix database == Oracle schema Oracle combines the schema and user into one pseudo-entity? Is there an owner then for Informix objects? Or does each user haves grants to the objects that were originally created by what ever user? TIA Cy BTW, I was looking at the job market for Informix DBAs. Not good. And lower pay than an Oracle DBA if you can find a job doing Informix. Me thinks I need to stick with Oracle as my bread and butter although Informix is vastly superior technically. If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share?

Cy wrote: > Thanks for all of the replies. This is helping. > > Is the following correct? > > onarchive == rman No - onbar == rman onbar is the backup tool which interfaces with a storage manager ontape is a backup tool which can be used to backup/restore to/from a file (or tape). Additionally ontape can backup/restore to/from STDIN/STDOUT. This is useful if you want to do something like. ontape | gzip | encrypt > /backup/bkup.dat > > What is ontape then? > > Should you use ontape or onarchive? > > Informix database == Oracle schema Sorta > > Oracle combines the schema and user into one pseudo-entity > > Is there an owner then for Informix objects? Or does each user haves > grants to the objects that were originally created by what ever user? Check the security manual for the definition of the database administrator's role. > > TIA > > Cy > > BTW, I was looking at the job market for Informix DBAs. Not good. And > lower pay than an Oracle DBA if you can find a job doing Informix. Me > thinks I need to stick with Oracle as my bread and butter although > Informix is vastly superior technically. > > If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share? >

> Thanks for all of the replies. This is helping. > > Is the following correct? > > onarchive == rman Onarchive doesn't 'exist' anymore, you want to use onbar or ontape Personally I prefer ontape cos it's dead easy > > What is ontape then? > > Should you use ontape or onarchive? > > Informix database == Oracle schema Ish > > Oracle combines the schema and user into one pseudo-entity? > > Is there an owner then for Informix objects? Or does each > user haves grants to the objects that were originally created > by what ever user? Objects have owners, you need to check out the grant/revoke syntax > > TIA > > Cy > > BTW, I was looking at the job market for Informix DBAs. Not > good. And lower pay than an Oracle DBA if you can find a job > doing Informix. Me thinks I need to stick with Oracle as my > bread and butter although Informix is vastly superior technically. > > If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share? Paul Watson Tel: +44 1414161772 Mob: +44 7818003457 Web: www.oninit.com Growing Old is Mandatory Growing Up is Optional Attend IDUG 2007 San Jose, North America May 6-10, 2007 Visit http://www.iiug.org/conf for more information.

Cy said: > Thanks for all of the replies. This is helping. > > Is the following correct? > > onarchive == rman > > What is ontape then? > > Should you use ontape or onarchive? Do not touch onarchive with someone else's penis. It's a very bad thing. Use ontape if your backup requirements are simple, or onbar if they're more sophisticated. > Informix database == Oracle schema > > Oracle combines the schema and user into one pseudo-entity? Errr.... ??????? > Is there an owner then for Informix objects? Or does each user haves > grants to the objects that were originally created by what ever user? Yes, there is an owner for Informix objects. You can grant permissions to other users, it is depressingly common for user "PUBLIC" to have all permissions. > BTW, I was looking at the job market for Informix DBAs. Not good. And > lower pay than an Oracle DBA if you can find a job doing Informix. Me > thinks I need to stick with Oracle as my bread and butter although > Informix is vastly superior technically. > > If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share? Because it wasn't invented by them. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Cy wrote: > Thanks for all of the replies. This is helping. > > Is the following correct? > > onarchive == rman > > What is ontape then? > > Should you use ontape or onarchive? Use OnBar unless backup/restore needs are very simple. OnArchive has been deprecated. > > Informix database == Oracle schema > > Oracle combines the schema and user into one pseudo-entity? > > Is there an owner then for Informix objects? Or does each user haves > grants to the objects that were originally created by what ever user? All objects in Informix have an owner just like in Oracle. The default is owner "Informix". One of the main differences you are seeing is that Oracle uses "ANSI" conventions by default where the owner of the object must be declared explicitly. You can make Informix behave the same way by changing the logging mode to ANSI. It will slow down the system as ANSI has a great deal of overhead. Changing the log mode to ANSI, will force owners to be declared, the default isolation level to be Repeatable Read (all rows examined are locked), 0 rows will return an error code and decimals will require precision to be declared. > > TIA > > Cy > > BTW, I was looking at the job market for Informix DBAs. Not good. And > lower pay than an Oracle DBA if you can find a job doing Informix. Me > thinks I need to stick with Oracle as my bread and butter although > Informix is vastly superior technically. Oracle DBA's work much harder than Informix DBA's, at least on database administration duties. You deserve the extra pay. Informix DBA's spend more time joshing on CDI and developing software and heaven knows what else. > > If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share? IBM's been struggling with how to push two databases in the same market space. They are now working on differentiating market needs and positioning either DB2 or IDS depending on specific requirements. The strategy is working and IDS share is increasing, though it is difficult to tell externally because of how the industry determines market share and how IBM records and reports database revenue. Don't expect the demand for Informix DBA's to grow dramatically, however, one of the things Informix prides itself on is ease of management and the number of instances that can be handled by a single DBA.

elanleblanc@yahoo.com wrote: > > You can make Informix behave the same way by changing the logging mode > to ANSI. It will slow down the system as ANSI has a great deal of > overhead. ... in the Informix implementation. There is no reason to pre-suppose that the Oracle implementation is non-performant. And I'm not sure that the point you are making is even correct. > Oracle DBA's work much harder than Informix DBA's, at least on database > administration duties. You deserve the extra pay. > > Informix DBA's spend more time joshing on CDI and developing software > and heaven knows what else. This is an old chestnut. It's never been proven that Informix is easier to own or operate than Oracle. >> If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share? > IBM's been struggling with how to push two databases in the same market > space. I think IBM would be very happy if they only had two databases to push. In fact, they have many, each with their own dev and marketing teams, and each with their own internal politics and turf wars. In some ways IBM is the CA for databases. And from here it looks like they would have had problems pushing just one - Micronauts anyone ? They are now working on differentiating market needs and > positioning either DB2 or IDS depending on specific requirements. > > The strategy is working and IDS share is increasing, though it is > difficult to tell externally because of how the industry determines > market share and how IBM records and reports database revenue. The order of this is backwards. The industry determines market share based on how the vendors record and reports database revenue. All IBM has to do to show growth is to break out the numbers. They used to do this, they have since stopped. Interesting enough, along with the recent change in guard in the DB business at IBM, you also saw a massive restatement of the numbers that has been previously reported to the analysts that they used to make up the marketshare numbers - IBM basically took 1.6 billion out of a 13 billion dollar market (shades of Phil White again ?). This will undoubtedly give them easier comparisons going forward, and may actually be what is behind any reported increase in DB revenue. The strange thing is that if Microsoft or Oracle did the same thing, there would be people screaming, claims of fraud, and probably congressional hearings. IBM somehow just managed to slip it in under the covers. > Don't expect the demand for Informix DBA's to grow dramatically, > however, one of the things Informix prides itself on is ease of > management and the number of instances that can be handled by a single > DBA. Or, saying it another way - shrinking base. Or at least, based on earlier comments, a strong indication that any revenue increase is not net-new customers, but simple expansion in the install base. Either Informix customers are buying new product (and I don't recall a lot of new product for them to buy over the last few years), or they are paying more for the product they already have. And that can be done by rasing license and support costs. Did I mention CA ?

Mark Townsend wrote: > elanleblanc@yahoo.com wrote: >> You can make Informix behave the same way by changing the logging mode >> to ANSI. It will slow down the system as ANSI has a great deal of >> overhead. > ... in the Informix implementation. There is no reason to pre-suppose > that the Oracle implementation is non-performant. And I'm not sure that > the point you are making is even correct. To the best of my knowledge the IDS ANSI knob is a pretty big switch. I've heard just last week that turning that switch is indeed bad. One tunes to what's popular I suppose. And popular is what is tuned. Darwin calls it specialization I suppose. (And yes it came as a bad surprise that we couldn't interbreed. ;-) >> Oracle DBA's work much harder than Informix DBA's, at least on database >> administration duties. You deserve the extra pay. >> Informix DBA's spend more time joshing on CDI and developing software >> and heaven knows what else. > This is an old chestnut. It's never been proven that Informix is easier > to own or operate than Oracle. There are IIUG board members running 6000+ IDS instances with a handful of DBA's. I haven't heard similar claims for Oracle, have you? (Haven't heard them for DB2 either) >>> If it is so good, then why isn't IBM pushing hard for market share? >> IBM's been struggling with how to push two databases in the same market >> space. > I think IBM would be very happy if they only had two databases to push. > In fact, they have many, each with their own dev and marketing teams, > and each with their own internal politics and turf wars. In some ways > IBM is the CA for databases. Well Oracle seems to be racking up quite a collection for themselves. I have yet to read that Derby comparison white paper on OTN...innoDb was it, right? > They are now working on differentiating market needs and >> positioning either DB2 or IDS depending on specific requirements. >> >> The strategy is working and IDS share is increasing, though it is >> difficult to tell externally because of how the industry determines >> market share and how IBM records and reports database revenue. > > The order of this is backwards. The industry determines market share > based on how the vendors record and reports database revenue. > All IBM has to do to show growth is to break out the numbers. They used > to do this, they have since stopped. And so has Oracle. It's "Databases and Middleware" now, isn't it? Got to love picking that one apart as an analyst. And how much of Oracle growth (if any exists this time around) will be based on feature upselling of RAC etc into existing accounts? > Interesting enough, along with the recent change in guard in the DB > business at IBM, you also saw a massive restatement of the numbers that > has been previously reported to the analysts that they used to make up > the marketshare numbers - IBM basically took 1.6 billion out of a 13 > billion dollar market (shades of Phil White again ?). This will > undoubtedly give them easier comparisons going forward, and may actually > be what is behind any reported increase in DB revenue. Wow. For someone that high in the Oracle organization you are throwing up a lot of dirt against IBM. Where does FUD turn into slander? Do you employ a legal team to tell you just how far you can dip that toe before the shark bites? >> Don't expect the demand for Informix DBA's to grow dramatically, >> however, one of the things Informix prides itself on is ease of >> management and the number of instances that can be handled by a single >> DBA. > > Or, saying it another way - shrinking base. Or at least, based on > earlier comments, a strong indication that any revenue increase is not > net-new customers, but simple expansion in the install base. Either > Informix customers are buying new product (and I don't recall a lot of > new product for them to buy over the last few years), or they are paying > more for the product they already have. And that can be done by rasing > license and support costs. Did I mention CA ? Earlier comments? Strong indications? Spoken like a true oracle... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab WAIUG Conference http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

>> Interesting enough, along with the recent change in guard in the DB >> business at IBM, you also saw a massive restatement of the numbers >> that has been previously reported to the analysts that they used to >> make up the marketshare numbers - IBM basically took 1.6 billion out >> of a 13 billion dollar market (shades of Phil White again ?). This >> will undoubtedly give them easier comparisons going forward, and may >> actually be what is behind any reported increase in DB revenue. > Wow. For someone that high in the Oracle organization you are throwing > up a lot of dirt against IBM. Where does FUD turn into slander? Do you > employ a legal team to tell you just how far you can dip that toe before > the shark bites? The re-instatement is a record of fact. In 2005, IDC reported IBM revenue for 2004 as around 4.5 billion (or 30.6% of a 14.9 billion dollar market). In 2006, IDC restated IBM revenue for 2004 as around 2.9 billion (of a 13.3 billion dollar market) In the 2006 IDC report there is the comment "Please note that revenue figures for both IBM and the total market have been reduced since last year."