IBM releases #1 TPC-E benchmark!

Sorry I missed this. IBM released its latest TPC-E benchmark on July 2, 2008. You can see it here: http://www.tpc.org/tpce/tpce_all_results.asp Wow. Thats fantastic news. Except for one small problem. Its not an IDS benchmark. Now, we've all heard the rumors of an IDS TPC-E benchmark... but where is it? IBM's TPC-C benchmarks? Still on DB2 IBMs TPC-E benchmarks? Still on Microsoft's SQLServer. Did you ever hear the old Hollywood joke... "Q: How do you know your agent is lying to you?" "A: His lips are moving..." I get the same impression from IBM's SWG IM's executive management team when it comes to IDS. Hey! Don't shoot the messenger. You can verify the facts yourself. Of course I'm sure we'll hear the excuses... On a side note to IBM's Jerry K. : You may take offense to the fact that I'm questioning the sincerity and integrity of IBM's IM senior execs. You may not remember Charlie Ill's replacement. One thing he said on his introduction con call was to the effect that he'll first give you the benefit of the doubt. But you only get one chance to screw that up. I think that its sound advice. Your R&D team may be hitting on all cylinders. But a lot of that good work is being wasted. But hey! What do I know? I'm just some guy sitting in the cheap seats taking it all in. ;-) -G

On Jul 12, 2:01 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Sorry I missed this. > IBM released its latest TPC-E benchmark on July 2, 2008. > You can see it here:http://www.tpc.org/tpce/tpce_all_results.asp > [SNIP] > But hey! What do I know? I'm just some guy sitting in the cheap seats > taking it all in. ;-) > > -G While it may be poor form to follow up to your own post, but I thought there was something else you should see... http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_last_ten_results.asp This is the latest tpc-c benchmarks released. If you take the time to look, IBM released yet another TPC-C benchmark on June 16,2008. Only its not DB2. Its *SYBASE*. On the same date, Dell released its benchmark using Oracle 11g, hitting a price per transaction of $0.68 USD. But hey! What do I know? I'm just waiting to hear the latest excuse from Serge that IBM had DB2 already set up so its easier to do a benchmark.... Or from somebody else that nobody pays attention to the benchmarks... -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > But hey! What do I know? Squat. > I'm just waiting to hear the latest excuse > from Serge that IBM had DB2 already set up so its easier to do a > benchmark.... I've given up on you, but may make a contribution when Mark's collection hat gets around to Toronto. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

On Jul 12, 2:27 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > But hey! What do I know? > Squat. > > I'm just waiting to hear the latest excuse > > from Serge that IBM had DB2 already set up so its easier to do a > > benchmark.... > > I've given up on you, but may make a contribution when Mark's collection > hat gets around to Toronto. > > Cheers > Serge Gee Serge, Tell me where I'm wrong? Wasn't there a rumor that there was going to be an IDS TPC-E benchmark? Of course since said rumor, IBM has not only released 2 TPC-C benchmarks using DB2, but also a TPC-C benchmark on *SYBASE*. And of course a brand new TPC-E benchmark using SQLServer. I think you could send your donation to Mark via Pay-Pal. And I tell ya, I sure could use a drink to wash down the BS being fed by IBM. They say one thing in Lenexa to the faithful. Yet their actions speak louder. What good is IDS 11.5 and beyond if you lose your vendors like Lawson, SAP, EXE etc , etc , etc .... ?

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Wasn't there a rumor that there was going to be an IDS TPC-E > benchmark? I heard that, too. > Of course since said rumor, IBM has not only released 2 TPC-C > benchmarks using DB2 We discussed DB2 TPC-C in the past. > but also a TPC-C benchmark on *SYBASE*. > And of course a brand new TPC-E benchmark using SQLServer. Neither have anything to do with SWG (Steve), IM (Ambuj), Dataserver (Arvind), and for sure IDS (Jerry) and you know that very well. Either of them may not even have been funded by IBM to begin with! Asking STG to not play along if they are approached by another vendor (thanks to STGs attractive marketshare) or STG asking another vendor to play along to secure their piece of the pie is silly. Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> Wasn't there a rumor that there was going to be an IDS TPC-E >> benchmark? > I heard that, too. > >> Of course since said rumor, IBM has not only released 2 TPC-C >> benchmarks using DB2 > We discussed DB2 TPC-C in the past. >> but also a TPC-C benchmark on *SYBASE*. >> And of course a brand new TPC-E benchmark using SQLServer. > Neither have anything to do with SWG (Steve), IM (Ambuj), Dataserver > (Arvind), and for sure IDS (Jerry) and you know that very well. > Either of them may not even have been funded by IBM to begin with! > Asking STG to not play along if they are approached by another vendor > (thanks to STGs attractive marketshare) or STG asking another vendor to > play along to secure their piece of the pie is silly. > > Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > > Cheers > Serge > I'd say that for people outside IBM this can be puzzling... After all it's the IBM logo that shows up on those web pages... But one interesting way to look at it is that you don't see the DB vendors logo... If anyone here outside IBM could easily understand it, it would be Ian, but that's just because of "what he knows"... But sadly, in this case he just plays as he "doesn't know" :) Last time he brough up this subject I tried to say that this are all "hardware" driven benchmarks, but I had no luck... If Mark accepts Euros, maybe I should send him my contribution also :)

On Jul 12, 5:13 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > Its not a question of conspiracy. That was Timmy's gig. A conspiracy would imply intent and actual planning and forethought. Like life under Janet P. I'm sorry, but stupidity and mismanagement should not be confused with intent. An example... Janet P. mandated that all of the Informix IT Specialists should become certified on DB2. (After all, that *was* IBM's database and there was this grand concept of project Arrowhead.) Yet today, knowing that Arrowhead was a failure and IBM's positioning statement clearly identifies IDS moving forward, there is no effort to gain parity and have those IT Specialists who are DB2 certified gain IDS certification. Janet P's actions were planned. Ambuj's actions are from a lack of forethought. (Hint: You can't sell a product if your sales team doesn't know how to support it, or talk about it.) I'm merely suggesting that IBM's SWG IM is incompetent when it comes to product management and working well with their counterparts within IBM. I'm also suggesting that all the good work being done in the lab is going to waste. IDS is probably the best general purpose database to be utilized in a grid computing architecture. Only IBM will probably squander its advantage because they don't seem to be capable of thinking outside the box. I'll even wager that if you poll the grid computing specialists and sales team, the majority of them wouldn't know what IDS is or its capabilities. ;-) I want you to think about something Serge. Suppose that the expectations of IBM's executive management team is that IBM can sell x number of licenses each year. And each year, IBM sells 20% above expectations. Now that sounds great. Year after year, IDS sales soundly beat expectations. Business is growing. Everybody is happy. But what if in reality, IBM could be selling 3x and that their initial expectations were set too low? Would you be happy then? Or rather, would they be happy? Since we don't know the numbers, lets use Informix's annual sales prior to the acquisition. That was 100 million. So my hypothetical example would mean that there was an additional 200 million left on the table. That's the point Serge. Were IBM to get their collective act together, they could dramatically increase sales. Just by thinking outside of the box ... -G PS. I kept the numbers simple just to make the point. Even if IBM were leaving 50 million (USD) a year on the table, wouldn't you agree that it was too much money?

On 13 Jul., 01:34, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > An example... Janet P. mandated that all of the Informix IT > Specialists should become certified on DB2. (After all, that *was* > IBM's database and there was this grand concept of project Arrowhead.) > Yet today, knowing that Arrowhead was a failure and IBM's positioning > statement clearly identifies IDS moving forward, there is no effort to > gain parity and have those IT Specialists who are DB2 certified gain > IDS certification. This is a deficiency that is really important, from my point of view. More important than the missing benchmark. During the IIUG annual meeting this issue has been raised to IBM senior management and I took the opportunity to emphasize it in a short discussion with A. Passarelli (IBM vice president WW data management sales) after the official discussion. However I still don't see any efforts from my IBM to change this weak point. Almost the whole IBM sales and technical sales is focussed on DB2, having no or too little knowledge about IDS. This results in lost deals because we all know that DB2 is not always the best choice for every opportunity :-) We want to see concrete actions from IBM to solve this problem, not any lip services. The same is true for the university programs. There is a whole team travelling around the world and promoting DB2 (LUW): http://db2expressc.blogspot.com/2008/02/2007-db2-on-campus-tour-results.html Why couldn't the same team promote and teach IDS beside DB2 ? Maybe because they have no knowledge about IDS, they are only focussed on DB2. I thought IBM has a multiple or at least dual database strategy ?

On Jul 13, 2:20 am, e...@herber-consulting.de wrote: > On 13 Jul., 01:34, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > An example... Janet P. mandated that all of the Informix IT > > Specialists should become certified on DB2. (After all, that *was* > > IBM's database and there was this grand concept of project Arrowhead.) > > Yet today, knowing that Arrowhead was a failure and IBM's positioning > > statement clearly identifies IDS moving forward, there is no effort to > > gain parity and have those IT Specialists who are DB2 certified gain > > IDS certification. > > This is a deficiency that is really important, from my point of view. > More important than > the missing benchmark. During the IIUG annual meeting this issue has > been > raised to IBM senior management and I took the opportunity to > emphasize it in a > short discussion with A. Passarelli (IBM vice president WW data > management sales) > after the official discussion. Oh you're not the first to point this out. Alyse knew about this when she was head of WW IDS sales. And she and other IM execs were told to tie the certification to not only the IT Specialists but also to their FLMs. Yet this hasn't happened for one reason or another. The reason I harp about the benchmark is that its one area which shows IBM's hypocrisy that can be publicly verified. Sure there are a *lot* of stories I could share about life inside IBM, but hey, you'd have to take my word. This way, you can see and verify what I'm saying to be true. Why do you have a WW team to preach about DB2 on LUW aka Distributed platforms? The answer is because they need it. IDS has the IIUG to do their preaching for them. (And that ladies and gents is a whole 'nother ball of wax ;-) IBM doesn't break out their sales numbers by product/platform. That doesn't mean they don't know the numbers. ;-) On I Series, aka AS/400, IBM gives away DB2 as part of the OS. So the customer gets it whether they want it or not. On z/OS (mainframe) IBM owns the market and DB2 is king. I'd wager that for every mainframe still running, DB2 is there. (And its where the bulk of their revenue comes in...) On LUW? IBM faces the most competition. (Oracle, SQLServer, Informix, Sybase, MySQL, Postgress, etc ...) And when you stack DB2 to its competitors, it doesn't stand out. Hmmm XPS vs DB2? (No, I won't go there...) While IDS is exceeding their sales expectations, I'll wager DB2 LUW isn't. So you have to do things to help get the word out. Like a WW evangelist team. Without getting in to the whole IIUG/IBM relationship, lets just say that in the DB2 world, you have IDUG... and IDUG is no IIUG. -G

On Jul 12, 6:20 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > If anyone here outside IBM could easily understand it, it would be Ian, but > that's just because of "what he knows"... But sadly, in this case he just plays > as he "doesn't know" :) > Last time he brough up this subject I tried to say that this are all "hardware" > driven benchmarks, but I had no luck... If Mark accepts Euros, maybe I should > send him my contribution also :) Did you ever consider that you are missing the bigger picture? Naw. That would never happen. Your and Serge's logic and excuses fall apart when you look at the issue from a slightly different perspective. You seem to agree that TPC.org's benchmarks require both a hardware partner and a database vendor. So if IBM's SWG IM mentions that they're doing a TPC-E benchmark, that would imply that they were talking to a hardware vendor. Hmmm. I wonder who that could be? IBM Hardware? Or would they talk to IBM's competitors like DELL, SUN, or HP? I doubt that very much. IBM Hardware releases a benchmark on DB2. Did IBM's Hardware division do this independently of IM? Somehow I don't think so. To your comment about the IBM logo on the bottom of IM's web pages, its there for a reason. Each division while somewhat independent doesn't always act independently and there is cross brand cooperation. IM is a pillar of SWG which is a division of IBM. IBM's strength is that they as a vendor can offer a complete solution. IBM *is* *the* *core* *brand*. That is the bigger picture. To Eric's point. The fact that IBM releases the benchmark on DB2 in spite of their "positioning statement" is a clear indication of a lack of parity between DB2 and IDS. The reason I focused on this issue is because it shows that the lack of parity is occurring at the senior executive level within IM and not just at the execution level of S&D. Alyse P can address the issue of S&D, however, Ambush er Ambuj has to be able address the issue within IM. But hey! Why don't you ask Mark if he's taking donations via Pay Pal? They'll do that conversion from Euros to Dollars for you. And since the dollar is at a low against the Euro, feel free to donate more. I'm getting awfully thirsty. ;-) -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Jul 12, 6:20 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If anyone here outside IBM could easily understand it, it would be Ian, but >> that's just because of "what he knows"... But sadly, in this case he just plays >> as he "doesn't know" :) >> Last time he brough up this subject I tried to say that this are all "hardware" >> driven benchmarks, but I had no luck... If Mark accepts Euros, maybe I should >> send him my contribution also :) > > Did you ever consider that you are missing the bigger picture? > Naw. That would never happen. This is your opinion, based on "what you know" of course... > > Your and Serge's logic and excuses fall apart when you look at the > issue from a slightly different perspective. > > You seem to agree that TPC.org's benchmarks require both a hardware > partner and a database vendor. > So if IBM's SWG IM mentions that they're doing a TPC-E benchmark, that > would imply that they were talking to a hardware vendor. > Hmmm. I wonder who that could be? > IBM Hardware? Or would they talk to IBM's competitors like DELL, SUN, > or HP? I doubt that very much. > > IBM Hardware releases a benchmark on DB2. Did IBM's Hardware division > do this independently of IM? Somehow I don't think so. My point, which you refuse to understand or even to address, is that these benchmarks are hardware driven... > To your comment about the IBM logo on the bottom of IM's web pages, Did I mention IM's web pages anywhere? I was referring to TPC.org web pages... You only see hardware companies's logos... Of course you could interpret IBM logo as anyway you like... > its there for a reason. Each division while somewhat independent > doesn't always act independently and there is cross brand cooperation. > IM is a pillar of SWG which is a division of IBM. IBM's strength is > that they as a vendor can offer a complete solution. IBM *is* *the* > *core* *brand*. That is the bigger picture. Another IBM strength (or weakness if you prefer) is that the divisions operate in a pretty independent units... Given your experience (and you were much more "inside" the organization that I am, ever be, or want to be...) I find it hard to believe you don't know this. And this way of acting has advantages and disadvantages... In a way IBM doesn't take advantage of all of it's capabilities, but in another way people can use products from any division and inter operate them with other suppliers products (ex: AIX sells for itself, and not because it runs IDS or DB2 better then other OS, and Informix or WAS can work perfectly well in other OS and other hardware) I'd say that IM does a lot more customer benchmarks than TPC.org... Most customers want to see the products and the software suppliers do something within their environment than just take some dubious benchmark, defined for hardware testing... You probably know what killed TPC-D and who made the pressure to change it into TPC-H... It were not the DB vendors... It were the hardware vendors. I'd love to see Informix in one of the top TPC-E benchmarks as much as anyone else who likes Informix, but it would be pretty useless for my job... Regards,

> Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > > Cheers > Serge Annoyingly accurate methinks. Any time you don't like it feel free to meet the demands of the user community. Some people call them "customers." -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: >> Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > Annoyingly accurate methinks. > > Any time you don't like it feel free to meet the demands of the user > community. Some people call them "customers." I was wondering when you'd show up. Although I expected you to help discuss temp tables ;-) Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

On Jul 13, 1:41 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: Sigh. Its unfortunate that your "logic" falls apart. You're claiming that its the hardware vendor that pushes these benchmarks. After all, its their "logo" that you see. If your claim was true, then IBM hardware went to Sybase to see if they wanted to do a benchmark. So why wouldn't they come to IBM SWG IM? ;-) Do you see where your logic falls apart? The reality is that it takes two to tango. You need to have both a hardware and a software vendor working together to do the benchmark. That both parties have to agree to a common goal as to what they want to achieve by the benchmark. Do they want to capture the most transactions per second on a very expensive platform that only a few can afford, or do they take the route of Dell, giving a reasonable number of transactions but at an incredible price point? So, we get back to the issue. If Serge is to be believed, after all he works in the "lab" (Markham) and he lives in the DB2 land. His excuse was that IBM IM was involved in the DB2 benchmark because it was "expedient". That they could turn around the benchmark quickly. After all, Informix hadn't published a benchmark in 10 years. So, someone within IM made the decision to go with DB2. Not IDS. This was well after IBM SWG IM execs made their positioning statement known. Adding insult to injury, you see a Sybase benchmark on a lower end system. Not IDS. So you have to ask why? Did Sybase court IBM? Did IBM court Sybase because they wanted to court one of the few financial customers that run Sybase to choose IBM hardware? If true, doesn't IBM want to sell more hardware to IDS customers? So even if you *assume* that hardware is pushing this, someone from IBM SWG IM is out of touch. But then we have the TPC-E "promised" benchmarks. Where are they? Could it be that IDS didn't perform as well as Microsoft in either the volume or the cost point numbers? And what about doing a TPC-C benchmark with IDS instead of DB2? The point Fernando, decisions on benchmarks are made at the senior level. So if there was a decision to do the TPC-C benchmark you can assume one or more of the following: 1) Some IBM SWG IM exec was asleep at the switch and didn't consider the reamifications 2) Some IBM SWG IM exec is pushing DB2 on LUW for a reason 3) [REDACTED] ;-) There's more, but I don't think I have to draw you or most people here a map. There's a couple of reasons you don't publish a benchmark. Either its not good enough. Or its too good. I'm sorry if you think that I'm trying to create some conspiracy theory. I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that there is still some major incompetence on the part of IBM SWG IM execs. What I am suggesting is that there is a lack of parity for a reason and that its not just in S&D's failure to execute. But that IM exec management is failing to execute. I'm sure Alyse is wondering who I know and what I know. ;-) So what happened to the TPC-E benchmark? And why didn't IBM release TPC-C benchmarks using IDS? (Oh and if they wanted, they could have put IDS on Bull equipment. ;-) l8r

On Jul 14, 1:03 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > > Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > > > Cheers > > Serge > > Annoyingly accurate methinks. > > Any time you don't like it feel free to meet the demands of the user > community. Some people call them "customers." No Daniel. Serge is trying to discredit what I'm saying because it hits home and asks too many questions. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory at all. Just simple incompetence on the part of certain IBM SWG IM execs who either don't care or don't think of the potential repercussions of their actions. Heck we've all seen a certain "exec" who is a spokesperson stick his size 9s in his mouth many times. Much to the chagrin of Jerry K. (I think his name was Bernie...) Nope. Ambush er Ambuj is just milking IDS because its selling.

On Jul 14, 5:48 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > >> Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > > Annoyingly accurate methinks. > > > Any time you don't like it feel free to meet the demands of the user > > community. Some people call them "customers." > > I was wondering when you'd show up. > Although I expected you to help discuss temp tables ;-) > Poor Serge. I mean yeah, I could pick on Daniel, but really Mark is the one who's in a position to fix Oracle. I mean heck, they eventually got their R-Tree issue solved in 10g. So one day they'll get their temp tables figured out. The only thing is that I wonder who will fix their temp tables first. DB2 or Oracle? ;-) But lets get back on track. How can IBM continue to press flesh in Lenexa, sing the praises of the IIUG and IDS. Yet, well, no spend real money on marketing. Not do the benchmarks or rather release the benchmarks. And well frankly put in place DB2 specialized teams to promote the brand. And here's poor Serge. I just wonder what he was doing when DB2 V8 was released on distributed? Or more to the point, what he was working on when Janet tried to convince a customer to switch from XPS to DB2 V8. I know a couple of stories that would make Serge blush. BTW what's Bob P doing these days? Didn't he take the heat for that blunder? And why was Janet in such a rush to release "Viper". (DB2 8 was Viper, right?)

On Jul 14, 11:22 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 5:48 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:> DA Morgan wrote: > > >> Your conspiracy theories are getting really annoying. > > > Annoyingly accurate methinks. > > > > Any time you don't like it feel free to meet the demands of the user > > > community. Some people call them "customers." > > > I was wondering when you'd show up. > > Although I expected you to help discuss temp tables ;-) > > Poor Serge. > > I mean yeah, I could pick on Daniel, but really Mark is the one who's > in a position to fix Oracle. > I mean heck, they eventually got their R-Tree issue solved in 10g. So > one day they'll get their temp tables figured out. The only thing is > that I wonder who will fix their temp tables first. DB2 or Oracle? ;-) > > But lets get back on track. > > How can IBM continue to press flesh in Lenexa, sing the praises of the > IIUG and IDS. Yet, well, no spend real money on marketing. Not do the > benchmarks or rather release the benchmarks. And well frankly put in > place DB2 specialized teams to promote the brand. > > And here's poor Serge. I just wonder what he was doing when DB2 V8 was > released on distributed? Or more to the point, what he was working on > when Janet tried to convince a customer to switch from XPS to DB2 V8. > > I know a couple of stories that would make Serge blush. BTW what's Bob > P doing these days? Didn't he take the heat for that blunder?  And why > was Janet in such a rush to release "Viper". (DB2 8 was Viper, right?) Some actual figures one day would be good, from a personal point to see aah, that’s what numbers can be on this setup. Managers / decision makers often think differently though. Perhaps it's because IDS is much faster / cheaper TCO than DB2 (although steeper IDS prices now favour DB2) and IBM doesn't want to annoy all their people on DB2 to have them switch to SQL (well SQL would be supported and not expensive with constant barrage marketing like Oracle) The other thing is, if IBM decided to do an IDS benchmark, an exec type at IBM is going to look at TPC and say, right top score is 6 million, 10 million sounds good to me this morning. IDS will have to go through somewhat of a re-write (rather than useful code development) and the drivers on the hardware it's running having similar tweaks until the magic burn up chart hits the figure. I'd be frowning on this development approach, wondering is this good for a product? Or are benchmarks actually done some other way - i.e. actually testing a bog standard product on a standard non optimised hardware setup. :) On second thoughts, if it means more mainframe dollars for IBM the exec would end up saying... right DB2 is 10 mil and in the lead, IDS was better TCO / quicker but post a benchmark showing it less than DB2 so not to affect our bottom line which is no use for Informix either. It would be nice to do strings oninit and find an ids_db2_tco_ratio undocumented variable - yeah I'm sure it would be in the makefile / typedef. The more you think about benchmarks, the more it seems a waste of time - damn, just bothered to write this.