Re: Whither Informix?

Tambi Dude wrote: > One more point. All RDBMS license revenue is increasing in 2006. > Sybase's license revenue grew by double digits this year. > Microsoft announced that SQL Server 2005 revenue was better than expected in > 2006. > Interesting that the net effect gets Informix just to the water line but almost no lift. The "net effect" being all that "investment" and improvement of Informix. 1. IBM Buys Informix, 2. IBM invests in Informix 3. IBM sits on Informix Here we are today. Sybase, which has done almost nothing of note, sailed along through the past 5 yrs, and has just about as much lift as Informix or IBM and didn't do a damn thing to get there. Amazing! All that investment to get almost no edge for Informix in the market place, basically unknown. Here's Sybase, still just rollin' along, and has as good if not better chance at the market than Informix!! What a waste of time Informix has been for IBM! Sell Informix to a group of investors that will do something with this product!!!

Double Echo wrote: > Tambi Dude wrote: >> One more point. All RDBMS license revenue is increasing in 2006. >> Sybase's license revenue grew by double digits this year. >> Microsoft announced that SQL Server 2005 revenue was better than >> expected in 2006. >> > > Interesting that the net effect gets Informix just to the water line but > almost > no lift. > > The "net effect" being all that "investment" and improvement of Informix. > > 1. IBM Buys Informix, > 2. IBM invests in Informix > 3. IBM sits on Informix > > Here we are today. Sybase, which has done almost nothing of note, sailed > along through the past 5 yrs, and has just about as much lift as > Informix or IBM > and didn't do a damn thing to get there. Amazing! All that investment > to get > almost no edge for Informix in the market place, basically unknown. > Here's Sybase, > still just rollin' along, and has as good if not better chance at the > market than > Informix!! > > What a waste of time Informix has been for IBM! > > Sell Informix to a group of investors that will do something with this > product!!! And to whose advantage would that be? The only buyer for Informix you will find is likely Oracle. And why would they want it after what IBM has done? No one is going to invest money into something IBM has effectively killed any more than anyone is going to buy Fox from Microsoft. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

DA Morgan wrote: > Double Echo wrote: >> Tambi Dude wrote: >>> One more point. All RDBMS license revenue is increasing in 2006. >>> Sybase's license revenue grew by double digits this year. >>> Microsoft announced that SQL Server 2005 revenue was better than >>> expected in 2006. >>> >> >> Interesting that the net effect gets Informix just to the water line >> but almost >> no lift. >> >> The "net effect" being all that "investment" and improvement of Informix. >> >> 1. IBM Buys Informix, >> 2. IBM invests in Informix >> 3. IBM sits on Informix >> >> Here we are today. Sybase, which has done almost nothing of note, sailed >> along through the past 5 yrs, and has just about as much lift as >> Informix or IBM >> and didn't do a damn thing to get there. Amazing! All that >> investment to get >> almost no edge for Informix in the market place, basically unknown. >> Here's Sybase, >> still just rollin' along, and has as good if not better chance at the >> market than >> Informix!! >> >> What a waste of time Informix has been for IBM! >> >> Sell Informix to a group of investors that will do something with this >> product!!! > > And to whose advantage would that be? > > The only buyer for Informix you will find is likely Oracle. And why > would they want it after what IBM has done? No one is going to invest > money into something IBM has effectively killed any more than anyone > is going to buy Fox from Microsoft. The real problem is that IBM announced how they paid 1 BILLION USD for Informix. Now they either have to sell it at the price they paid for it or sell it for less--which would mean having to tell a buyer how much it is *really* worth. I seriously don't think they'll get any buyers at 1 BILLION USD, but if they sold it for what it's really worth, say 100 or 200 MILLION USD then it might sound realistic. It's not like it's really doing anything serious for IBM. The lift IBM got out of the so-called increase in sales is so fleeting as to be hardly worth mentioning or thinking about. And besides it's not about databases anymore as if that's even important, but more about applications. If the database is going to be important it's got to have an application that really gives it credibility. It's also got to have some serious developer momentum. Until that happens it will continue to flounder, which is why I asked in the beginning of this thread, what happened? A new release comes out and it's a big nothing. So what's the point to it all? They may as well keep improving it till the cows come home and forget about even mentioning new releases. There's no point to even talking about the product if it's never going anywhere. To answer your question, whose advantage? At least the product would have a fighting chance, right now it's just being sat on. It's also bad to cast it as Fox vs Microsoft, it's a bigger problem than that because nobody is willing to say Informix is not as good as DB2, nor are they willing to say DB2 is better than Informix. You could easily say Fox isn't as good as SQL-Server, but in IBM's situation they have two peer products and no idea what to do with either product.

Double Echo wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Double Echo wrote: >>> Tambi Dude wrote: >>>> One more point. All RDBMS license revenue is increasing in 2006. >>>> Sybase's license revenue grew by double digits this year. >>>> Microsoft announced that SQL Server 2005 revenue was better than >>>> expected in 2006. >>>> >>> >>> Interesting that the net effect gets Informix just to the water line >>> but almost >>> no lift. >>> >>> The "net effect" being all that "investment" and improvement of >>> Informix. >>> >>> 1. IBM Buys Informix, >>> 2. IBM invests in Informix >>> 3. IBM sits on Informix >>> >>> Here we are today. Sybase, which has done almost nothing of note, >>> sailed >>> along through the past 5 yrs, and has just about as much lift as >>> Informix or IBM >>> and didn't do a damn thing to get there. Amazing! All that >>> investment to get >>> almost no edge for Informix in the market place, basically unknown. >>> Here's Sybase, >>> still just rollin' along, and has as good if not better chance at the >>> market than >>> Informix!! >>> >>> What a waste of time Informix has been for IBM! >>> >>> Sell Informix to a group of investors that will do something with >>> this product!!! >> >> And to whose advantage would that be? >> >> The only buyer for Informix you will find is likely Oracle. And why >> would they want it after what IBM has done? No one is going to invest >> money into something IBM has effectively killed any more than anyone >> is going to buy Fox from Microsoft. > > The real problem is that IBM announced how they paid 1 BILLION USD for > Informix. Now they either have to sell it at the price they paid for > it or sell it for less--which would mean having to tell a buyer how much > it is *really* worth. I seriously don't think they'll get any buyers > at 1 BILLION USD, but if they sold it for what it's really worth, say > 100 or 200 MILLION USD then it might sound realistic. It's not like it's > really doing anything serious for IBM. The lift IBM got out of > the so-called increase in sales is so fleeting as to be hardly worth > mentioning or thinking about. And besides it's not about databases > anymore as if that's even important, but more about applications. If > the database is going to be important it's got to have an application > that really gives it credibility. It's also got to have some serious > developer momentum. Until that happens it will continue to flounder, > which is why I asked in the beginning of this thread, what happened? > A new release comes out and it's a big nothing. So what's the point > to it all? They may as well keep improving it till the cows come home > and forget about even mentioning new releases. There's no point to > even talking about the product if it's never going anywhere. > > To answer your question, whose advantage? At least the product would > have a fighting chance, right now it's just being sat on. It's also > bad to cast it as Fox vs Microsoft, it's a bigger problem than that > because nobody is willing to say Informix is not as good as DB2, nor > are they willing to say DB2 is better than Informix. You could easily > say Fox isn't as good as SQL-Server, but in IBM's situation they have > two peer products and no idea what to do with either product. Neither IBM, nor Oracle, nor Microsoft cares about the survival of any specific product. It is only persons such as yourself, who have tied their career to a product, that care. What corporations care about is market-share, gross revenue, and net profits. IBM could well have benefited by more than $1B already just in gaining access to superior technology, superior developers, and a revenue stream from license renewals and upgrades. Don't think for one minute the folks sitting in the IBM board room are stupid: They are not. An unbiased view of the software marketplace shows a distinct and unerring trend. How many word processors are there today? One for all practical purposes. Spreadsheet programs? Desktop databases? You get the point. The market can not, and will not, support more than a few vendors for products that are essentially commodities. The truth is that there is nothing you can do in Informix you can't do in Sybase or SQL Server or Oracle. It may not perform as well and it may perform better but it can be done. So other than this community of DBAs and developers no one cares about Informix's survival. I want it to survive, just as I want Sybase to survive, to keep the technology from stagnating. But other than that ... we are it. I know the above is not what people want to hear but it is a dose of reality. If IBM does not throw major marketing dollars into enlarging the customer base Informix will be on life-support by the end of next year. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

DA Morgan said: > > I know the above is not what people want to hear but it is a dose of > reality. If IBM does not throw major marketing dollars into enlarging > the customer base Informix will be on life-support by the end of next > year. I thought IDS was going to be dead by 2005, Daniel? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: >> I know the above is not what people want to hear but it is a dose of >> reality. If IBM does not throw major marketing dollars into enlarging >> the customer base Informix will be on life-support by the end of next >> year. > > I thought IDS was going to be dead by 2005, Daniel? > Bad oracle? "If you start this war it will be the end of a great kingdom" :-) -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab WAIUG Conference http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

Serge Rielau said: > Bad oracle? "If you start this war it will be the end of a great > kingdom" :-) Unfortunately, IBM is still here. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

All - After working "there" for 6 years and at Informix for 6 years, traveling the world for 1.5 years of the IDS 10.0 launch, I have what I believe is a plausible theory...but first, some comments.... Continued Development ------------------------------- IDS 10.5 does have some great new features coming out as many saw at conference. So truly if IBM didn't care about "something" with regards to IDS (more in a minute), there would be no need for these features. There are 3 different beta training classes going on for IDS 10.5 in the next few months - one is already completed. So this is good. There are some key players from the "original crew" left at IBM - John, Johnathon, Madison, Guy.....this is important to all us. Advertising -------------- Can we please put this one to bed? That dead horse is really, really starting to "reek"! Those of us "out there" ----------------------------- We are staying busy with a great deal of consulting and other related work. One "of us" is looking at a very large, multi-year deal on yes, Informix. I just left a site that is on Informix, and has been since before SE...with no plans of moving to anyone else. 3rd Party Support ----------------------- Yes - this is still ugly. Not sure what to do here. And no - I do not expect IBM to pick up the slack here. If I'm wrong, I'm happy. A Theory ----------- Took me awhile to figure it out, but I think i'm onto something...consider what percentage of IBM employees have made a career off of, yes, DB2. DB2 on "big iron" is a huge $$$-maker as we all know. So yes, even though someone said "a company doesn't care about one specific product....", that couldn't be further from the truth in the case of DB2 and IBM. Now - what was the first effort made after the aquisition? To help Informix users migrate to DB2. I know - I spoke at the first conference and at 18 cities that year comparing IDS and DB2. The feeling was that since I was so well connected to Informix clients that I could help with the transition. As most of you know, my main message was "learn about DB2 now so you can make an educated decision." BUT - during that year and in the following years, many, many clients have not migrated to DB2 but as you all know, to other players. So IBM had a choice - stop the bleeding "somehow", or let the customers continue to walk away. To help stop the bleeding - IDS 10.0 was delivered. AND we did a World Tour. And there actually was some press and some advertisements (yes - there was), which was great for all of us. But - never was IDS positioned as "better" than DB2....multi-threaded or not. (Yes - the base architectures are not even close....trust me). So what did 10.0 and continued development do for IDS? Kept the customers connected - to IDS. That is good. But let's look at it differently...it also kept IDS "afloat" and the customers excited, until...the next attempt to get clients to .... you guessed it....DB2. That's my theory. I've seen many, many slides on where DB2 is going....even one that said it will be "multi-threaded" in 2008. One has to appreciate the irony of that....I don't know any DB2/distributed customers that have asked for multi-threading - they have chosen DB2 without this architectural benefit. And the Informix folks already have the product they want. So it's a theory.....and more food for fodder..... Mark Scranton Informix 1995-retirement Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Serge Rielau said: > > Bad oracle? "If you start this war it will be the end of a great > > kingdom" :-) > > Unfortunately, IBM is still here. > > -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio > > "... no bill is required as no value was provided." > -- Christine Normile > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean.

Mark, I always enjoy reading your comments. I remain truly skeptical about the success or failure of Informix no matter what you or anyone says about Informix. The so-called "customers continued to walk away" theory that is supposed to have mitigated the need to upgrade Informix always fascinates me. The idea that Informix or IBM are actually in touch with their customers is on a par with learning what the Da Vinci code was all about. It wasn't important to know, but the buzz surrounding it made it seem like the Da Vinci code is important, the same for the churn factor for Informix customers. Both the Da Vinci code and Informix seem to be more about mythology than fact, either for the good things or the bad things. What will be helpful for the future will be some real factual information about Informix 10.x, what it is, what it can do, and how to get developers interested in it enough to want to put applications on it. That will involve more than just word-of-mouth here in c.d.i.. INFORMIX NEEDS NEW CUSTOMERS. Nothing wrong with expanding the base. Get it out there, then build some depth of applications. It's worthless if nobody is using it. Regards, -DE- mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: > All - > > After working "there" for 6 years and at Informix for 6 years, > traveling the world for 1.5 years of the IDS 10.0 launch, I have what I > believe is a plausible theory...but first, some comments.... > > Continued Development > ------------------------------- > IDS 10.5 does have some great new features coming out as many saw at > conference. So truly if IBM didn't care about "something" with regards > to IDS (more in a minute), there would be no need for these features. > There are 3 different beta training classes going on for IDS 10.5 in > the next few months - one is already completed. So this is good. There > are some key players from the "original crew" left at IBM - John, > Johnathon, Madison, Guy.....this is important to all us. > > Advertising > -------------- > Can we please put this one to bed? That dead horse is really, really > starting to "reek"! > > Those of us "out there" > ----------------------------- > We are staying busy with a great deal of consulting and other related > work. One "of us" is looking at a very large, multi-year deal on yes, > Informix. I just left a site that is on Informix, and has been since > before SE...with no plans of moving to anyone else. > > 3rd Party Support > ----------------------- > Yes - this is still ugly. Not sure what to do here. And no - I do not > expect IBM to pick up the slack here. If I'm wrong, I'm happy. > > A Theory > ----------- > Took me awhile to figure it out, but I think i'm onto > something...consider what percentage of IBM employees have made a > career off of, yes, DB2. DB2 on "big iron" is a huge $$$-maker as we > all know. So yes, even though someone said "a company doesn't care > about one specific product....", that couldn't be further from the > truth in the case of DB2 and IBM. > > Now - what was the first effort made after the aquisition? To help > Informix users migrate to DB2. I know - I spoke at the first conference > and at 18 cities that year comparing IDS and DB2. The feeling was that > since I was so well connected to Informix clients that I could help > with the transition. As most of you know, my main message was "learn > about DB2 now so you can make an educated decision." BUT - during that > year and in the following years, many, many clients have not migrated > to DB2 but as you all know, to other players. So IBM had a choice - > stop the bleeding "somehow", or let the customers continue to walk > away. To help stop the bleeding - IDS 10.0 was delivered. AND we did a > World Tour. And there actually was some press and some advertisements > (yes - there was), which was great for all of us. But - never was IDS > positioned as "better" than DB2....multi-threaded or not. (Yes - the > base architectures are not even close....trust me). So what did 10.0 > and continued development do for IDS? Kept the customers connected - to > IDS. That is good. But let's look at it differently...it also kept IDS > "afloat" and the customers excited, until...the next attempt to get > clients to .... you guessed it....DB2. That's my theory. I've seen > many, many slides on where DB2 is going....even one that said it will > be "multi-threaded" in 2008. One has to appreciate the irony of > that....I don't know any DB2/distributed customers that have asked for > multi-threading - they have chosen DB2 without this architectural > benefit. And the Informix folks already have the product they want. > > So it's a theory.....and more food for fodder..... > > Mark Scranton > Informix 1995-retirement > > > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Serge Rielau said: >>> Bad oracle? "If you start this war it will be the end of a great >>> kingdom" :-) >> Unfortunately, IBM is still here. >> >> -- >> Bye now, >> Obnoxio >> >> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." >> -- Christine Normile >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is >> believed to be clean. >

mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: > That's my theory. I've seen > many, many slides on where DB2 is going....even one that said it will > be "multi-threaded" in 2008. One has to appreciate the irony of > that....I don't know any DB2/distributed customers that have asked for > multi-threading - they have chosen DB2 without this architectural > benefit. And the Informix folks already have the product they want. DB2 for LUW has been running multi-threaded on Windows since its inception on that platform (DB2 V2 in 1993 I believe). Given that the "process-model" is encapsulated we can flip between threaded and multi-process "at will" (meaning at a moderate cost). No customer ever asks for infrastructure features. That's why they are infrastructure. I doubt Informix introduced threading due to customer demand. W.r.t getting users of IDS onto DB2 I stood up at the IIUG meeting in Anaheim and I will do it again here: There is no such thing as a project to make DB2 and IDS the same. All DB2 for LUW SQL features current and planned cross my cluttered desk. I have no SQL item (that's where the rubber hits the road for an app after all) active under development or planned which purpose it is to increase compatibility with IDS. No case sensitive table names, no double quoted strings, no SERIAL column, no ::-casting, SPL, etc, etc.... in DB2. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab WAIUG Conference http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

Serge Rielau said: > I stood up at the IIUG meeting in Anaheim and I will do it again here: OK, you can sit down now, Serge. We all know what you look like. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Serge, It's simple to choose DB2 or IDS. DB2 is for customers who don't really know a good database from a bad one and want something besides SQL-Server. They probably like Oracle. They probably run apps and just want a good nuts-n-bolts database that is on the enterprise-db list. They couldn't tell the difference between a schema and a good mystery novel. DB2 runs good, has chimpanzee-simple HA, and is pretty reliable. It's got IBM's name on it, and can do a lot of things without threading. It looks like a distant cousin of flat files. Despite DB2's bland construction it has a lot of good features, and is a nice choice if you have to choose between SQL-Server, Oracle, or Sybase. IDS is for customers who really do know a good database from a band one and want something besides Oracle or SQL-Server or DB2 or Sybase. IDS is for customers that really do things with data, and don't depend on more and more powerpoint slides or future hope from the vendor. IDS works great today, not tomorrow, and has the most flexibility and options of any database to choose from. IDS not only has multi-threading it also has virtual processors, something no other database has, and amazingly enough is still one of the best ideas in database engines. -DE- Serge Rielau wrote: > mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: >> That's my theory. I've seen >> many, many slides on where DB2 is going....even one that said it will >> be "multi-threaded" in 2008. One has to appreciate the irony of >> that....I don't know any DB2/distributed customers that have asked for >> multi-threading - they have chosen DB2 without this architectural >> benefit. And the Informix folks already have the product they want. > DB2 for LUW has been running multi-threaded on Windows since its > inception on that platform (DB2 V2 in 1993 I believe). > Given that the "process-model" is encapsulated we can flip between > threaded and multi-process "at will" (meaning at a moderate cost). > > No customer ever asks for infrastructure features. That's why they are > infrastructure. I doubt Informix introduced threading due to customer > demand. > > W.r.t getting users of IDS onto DB2 > I stood up at the IIUG meeting in Anaheim and I will do it again here: > > There is no such thing as a project to make DB2 and IDS the same. > All DB2 for LUW SQL features current and planned cross my cluttered > desk. I have no SQL item (that's where the rubber hits the road for an > app after all) active under development or planned which purpose it is > to increase compatibility with IDS. > No case sensitive table names, no double quoted strings, no SERIAL > column, no ::-casting, SPL, etc, etc.... in DB2. > > Cheers > Serge

Double Echo wrote: > Serge, > > It's simple to choose DB2 or IDS. > > DB2 is for customers who don't really know a good database from a bad one > and want something besides SQL-Server. They probably like Oracle. They > probably run apps and just want a good nuts-n-bolts database that is on > the enterprise-db list. They couldn't tell the difference between a schema > and a good mystery novel. DB2 runs good, has chimpanzee-simple HA, and > is pretty reliable. It's got IBM's name on it, and can do a lot of things > without threading. It looks like a distant cousin of flat files. Despite > DB2's bland construction it has a lot of good features, and is a nice > choice > if you have to choose between SQL-Server, Oracle, or Sybase. > > IDS is for customers who really do know a good database from a band one > and want something besides Oracle or SQL-Server or DB2 or Sybase. IDS > is for > customers that really do things with data, and don't depend on more and > more powerpoint slides or future hope from the vendor. IDS works great > today, not tomorrow, and has the most flexibility and options of any > database to choose from. IDS not only has multi-threading it also has > virtual processors, something no other database has, and amazingly enough > is still one of the best ideas in database engines. DE, So what is XPS all about? Could it be there is some (multi billion $ market) IDS does not cover? Is it inconceivable that in this space DB2 has something to offer to companies like VISA? Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab WAIUG Conference http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

Serge Rielau wrote: > Double Echo wrote: >> Serge, >> >> It's simple to choose DB2 or IDS. >> >> DB2 is for customers who don't really know a good database from a bad one >> and want something besides SQL-Server. They probably like Oracle. They >> probably run apps and just want a good nuts-n-bolts database that is on >> the enterprise-db list. They couldn't tell the difference between a >> schema >> and a good mystery novel. DB2 runs good, has chimpanzee-simple HA, and >> is pretty reliable. It's got IBM's name on it, and can do a lot of >> things >> without threading. It looks like a distant cousin of flat files. >> Despite >> DB2's bland construction it has a lot of good features, and is a nice >> choice >> if you have to choose between SQL-Server, Oracle, or Sybase. >> >> IDS is for customers who really do know a good database from a band one >> and want something besides Oracle or SQL-Server or DB2 or Sybase. IDS >> is for >> customers that really do things with data, and don't depend on more and >> more powerpoint slides or future hope from the vendor. IDS works great >> today, not tomorrow, and has the most flexibility and options of any >> database to choose from. IDS not only has multi-threading it also has >> virtual processors, something no other database has, and amazingly enough >> is still one of the best ideas in database engines. > DE, > > So what is XPS all about? Could it be there is some (multi billion $ > market) IDS does not cover? Is it inconceivable that in this space DB2 > has something to offer to companies like VISA? > > Cheers > Serge The problem for XPS is more about marketing than features. Since XPS is practically unknown it's suffering the same fate as IDS. DB2 at the clustered level works basically the same as XPS. I've installed both from scratch, done the DBA work for both XPS and DB2 and XPS is still my preference. Monitoring DB2 is painful, and difficult to write scripts for, with many of the monitoring commands split up between different user ids. Very confusing. If there is "something to offer" companies, such as either offering XPS or DB2, there should be enough material available to a consultant or sales professional to demonstrate the features of both, and let the customer decide. Both are good shared-nothing products. I do like the config for DB2, it is well thought out for clustering, but the poor monitoring features of DB2 and its lack of multi-threading leaves me with concern that it won't be able to handle big big data. I'm not saying those are real problems, but they _are_ real perceptions. Informix professionals should be proud of the products they represent, and there should be some real marketing of those products. XPS has a great history and is a great product, but until it too has someone blowing its horn it will end up in the same boneyard of great technology that didn't make it in the market. It deserves a decent chance to compete, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

"DB2 multi-threaded on Windows"? The answer is in the question. This one made me chuckle. But this is good for all the Z/OS customers migrating to Windows, right? (chuckle again). XPS and DB2? I did the session in Charlotte many years ago when two very large banks merged, and one had XPS and the other DB2 EEE. One side of the room had the XPS'ers, the other, DB2'ers. I compared and contrasted the 2 architectures and feature sets. The new, "larger" bank chose XPS. A large company in Phoenix was pushed down the DB2 road a couple of years ago. Let's just say that they will have a 28TB engine on XPS by the end of the year. Large bank in England was once told the XPS 8.51 was the last release. He said "I want to buy more XPS....regardless." And "customers don't ask for [multi-threaded]...." - dead wrong there. The "line-up" of IDS customers at the "first Anaheim" (after the acquisition) before the panel of execs on the stage....Dan M., a customer, asked specifically about multi-threaded versus not...Don T. deflected the question with "who cares whether it's multi-threaded at the end of the day..." - all the Informix customers groaned. That's because they DO know their architectures (NOT "infrastructures"), and understand the technical value of an architecture that will scale. Why do they know this? Cause our Informix classes over the years, from Sys Admin down to the Internal Architecture class thoroughly covered the concept of multi-threaded, and how Informix implemented it back in the early 90's in v7. And why do the Informix folks know so much about "process-based" versus "thread-based"? Because of Informix Online version 5, and it's process-based, single-threaded architecture. When the Informix developers found v5 would not scale (due to an ever-expanding process footprint as more and more users connected as is true in process-based architectures (without a connection concentrator that is)), they implemented true multi-threading. (Most remember that the first release, v6, was "interesting", but v7 cleaned up stuff). XPS is actually a "much sadder" story than IDS in my opinion. I've seen the power of XPS, and still believe it is the best product ever released by Informix. Everyone dings XPS saying "nobody has it"...well - it's market was never meant to be as big as IDS, for the following reasons: 1) it's target was very large DW environments; 2) it's price point was much, much higher; 3) it's implementation was very hardware-driven, and sometimes takes months to implement (and rightfully so). 4) Early releases did not have OLTP features - it was meant purely for DW. 8.31 brought many OLTP features, but the market was still DW. OK - that's enough for now. Thanks for listening - Mark Scranton Informix 1995 - 1st great-grandchild Double Echo wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > > Double Echo wrote: > >> Serge, > >> > >> It's simple to choose DB2 or IDS. > >> > >> DB2 is for customers who don't really know a good database from a bad one > >> and want something besides SQL-Server. They probably like Oracle. They > >> probably run apps and just want a good nuts-n-bolts database that is on > >> the enterprise-db list. They couldn't tell the difference between a > >> schema > >> and a good mystery novel. DB2 runs good, has chimpanzee-simple HA, and > >> is pretty reliable. It's got IBM's name on it, and can do a lot of > >> things > >> without threading. It looks like a distant cousin of flat files. > >> Despite > >> DB2's bland construction it has a lot of good features, and is a nice > >> choice > >> if you have to choose between SQL-Server, Oracle, or Sybase. > >> > >> IDS is for customers who really do know a good database from a band one > >> and want something besides Oracle or SQL-Server or DB2 or Sybase. IDS > >> is for > >> customers that really do things with data, and don't depend on more and > >> more powerpoint slides or future hope from the vendor. IDS works great > >> today, not tomorrow, and has the most flexibility and options of any > >> database to choose from. IDS not only has multi-threading it also has > >> virtual processors, something no other database has, and amazingly enough > >> is still one of the best ideas in database engines. > > DE, > > > > So what is XPS all about? Could it be there is some (multi billion $ > > market) IDS does not cover? Is it inconceivable that in this space DB2 > > has something to offer to companies like VISA? > > > > Cheers > > Serge > > The problem for XPS is more about marketing than features. Since XPS is > practically unknown it's suffering the same fate as IDS. DB2 at the > clustered level works basically the same as XPS. I've installed both from > scratch, done the DBA work for both XPS and DB2 and XPS is still my preference. > Monitoring DB2 is painful, and difficult to write scripts for, with many of > the monitoring commands split up between different user ids. Very confusing. > > If there is "something to offer" companies, such as either offering XPS or DB2, > there should be enough material available to a consultant or sales professional > to demonstrate the features of both, and let the customer decide. Both are > good shared-nothing products. I do like the config for DB2, it is well thought > out for clustering, but the poor monitoring features of DB2 and its lack of > multi-threading leaves me with concern that it won't be able to handle big > big data. I'm not saying those are real problems, but they _are_ real > perceptions. Informix professionals should be proud of the products they > represent, and there should be some real marketing of those products. XPS has > a great history and is a great product, but until it too has someone blowing > its horn it will end up in the same boneyard of great technology that didn't > make it in the market. It deserves a decent chance to compete, but I don't > see that happening anytime soon.

mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: > Now - what was the first effort made after the aquisition? To help > Informix users migrate to DB2. I know - I spoke at the first conference > and at 18 cities that year comparing IDS and DB2. The feeling was that > since I was so well connected to Informix clients that I could help > with the transition. As most of you know, my main message was "learn > about DB2 now so you can make an educated decision." BUT - during that > year and in the following years, many, many clients have not migrated > to DB2 but as you all know, to other players. So IBM had a choice - > stop the bleeding "somehow", or let the customers continue to walk > away. To help stop the bleeding - IDS 10.0 was delivered. AND we did a > World Tour. And there actually was some press and some advertisements > (yes - there was), which was great for all of us. But - never was IDS > positioned as "better" than DB2....multi-threaded or not. (Yes - the > base architectures are not even close....trust me). So what did 10.0 > and continued development do for IDS? Kept the customers connected - to > IDS. That is good. But let's look at it differently...it also kept IDS > "afloat" and the customers excited, until...the next attempt to get > clients to .... you guessed it....DB2. That's my theory. I've seen > many, many slides on where DB2 is going....even one that said it will > be "multi-threaded" in 2008. One has to appreciate the irony of > that....I don't know any DB2/distributed customers that have asked for > multi-threading - they have chosen DB2 without this architectural > benefit. And the Informix folks already have the product they want. > > So it's a theory.....and more food for fodder..... > > Mark Scranton > Informix 1995-retirement And that is precisely what those of us who get to meet and greet the salesforce are seeing. How many people from IBM are knocking on doors selling DB2? How many Informix? The number tell the tale. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

One little note to attach to what you're saying. Informix _had_ been very restricted in dishing out XPS, somewhat of an attitude that it was only reserved for the elite. I think the price tag the last time I priced it was $50,000/processor, but the price is less of an issue than getting it in the hands of Informix people so they can play with it, test it, and implement lab environments where the customer can see and feel XPS. Again, if nobody is using it then it's basically worthless. There has to be a sea change at IBM to get these products as available as DB2. I downloaded DB2 EEE, implemented basically an XPS cluster in DB2 EEE, and tested it for a year before the customer bought it. But they bought it because they saw the power of shared-nothing. I could have probably begged IBM to get me a copy of XPS and do the same thing with XPS, but I wasn't sure if Informix was going to be around. In a lot of cases these kinds of projects have to be done below radar just to get a proof of concept--not so much for management, but for the guy who will present the POC results. The DBA should be able to have some playtime with these products so they don't stand there like a dumbass when all the Microsoft weenies and others argue against the product. There is nothing like real, in-house benchmarks to back up a reason for buying something like XPS. So in short, IBM needs to get XPS out there for download. You can configure it basically the same as DB2 EEE, only better. Virtual and physical partitioning, it rocks. mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: > "DB2 multi-threaded on Windows"? The answer is in the question. This > one made me chuckle. But this is good for all the Z/OS customers > migrating to Windows, right? (chuckle again). > > XPS and DB2? I did the session in Charlotte many years ago when two > very large banks merged, and one had XPS and the other DB2 EEE. One > side of the room had the XPS'ers, the other, DB2'ers. I compared and > contrasted the 2 architectures and feature sets. The new, "larger" bank > chose XPS. > > A large company in Phoenix was pushed down the DB2 road a couple of > years ago. Let's just say that they will have a 28TB engine on XPS by > the end of the year. > > Large bank in England was once told the XPS 8.51 was the last release. > He said "I want to buy more XPS....regardless." > > And "customers don't ask for [multi-threaded]...." - dead wrong there. > The "line-up" of IDS customers at the "first Anaheim" (after the > acquisition) before the panel of execs on the stage....Dan M., a > customer, asked specifically about multi-threaded versus not...Don T. > deflected the question with "who cares whether it's multi-threaded at > the end of the day..." - all the Informix customers groaned. That's > because they DO know their architectures (NOT "infrastructures"), and > understand the technical value of an architecture that will scale. Why > do they know this? Cause our Informix classes over the years, from Sys > Admin down to the Internal Architecture class thoroughly covered the > concept of multi-threaded, and how Informix implemented it back in the > early 90's in v7. And why do the Informix folks know so much about > "process-based" versus "thread-based"? Because of Informix Online > version 5, and it's process-based, single-threaded architecture. When > the Informix developers found v5 would not scale (due to an > ever-expanding process footprint as more and more users connected as is > true in process-based architectures (without a connection concentrator > that is)), they implemented true multi-threading. (Most remember that > the first release, v6, was "interesting", but v7 cleaned up stuff). > > XPS is actually a "much sadder" story than IDS in my opinion. I've seen > the power of XPS, and still believe it is the best product ever > released by Informix. Everyone dings XPS saying "nobody has it"...well > - it's market was never meant to be as big as IDS, for the following > reasons: 1) it's target was very large DW environments; 2) it's price > point was much, much higher; 3) it's implementation was very > hardware-driven, and sometimes takes months to implement (and > rightfully so). 4) Early releases did not have OLTP features - it was > meant purely for DW. 8.31 brought many OLTP features, but the market > was still DW. > > OK - that's enough for now. > > Thanks for listening - > Mark Scranton > Informix 1995 - 1st great-grandchild > > > >