Re: Database market share 2004

Stu Charlton wrote: > > So the question is whether OSS eventually sucks the direct revenue out > of the market. If there are enough vested interests to fund that sort > of effort, sure, it could happen. Apache is a great example of that > effect. I think the next area probably will be operating systems. > Databases will take longer, if ever. > I think databases will happen sooner than you think. Hardware is getting cheaper while getting faster, storage is getting cheaper while getting faster OSS Databases are getting faster and more stable while still being free. The one point missing in OSS databases is support. It's so damn hard to get any support on OSS databases. That's why many companies still go for the mainstream databases, for the false sense of safety (I pay for it so it must be good) and for the support (which I still think is one of the most important issues). -R-

Jurgen Haan wrote: > The one point missing in OSS databases is support. > It's so damn hard to get any support on OSS databases. > > That's why many companies still go for the mainstream databases, > for the false sense of safety (I pay for it so it must be good) and for > the support (which I still think is one of the most important issues). > > -R- There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site. It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24. And then there's that little problem with government requirements around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote: >There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are >slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a >reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site. >It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24. >And then there's that little problem with government requirements >around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time. I have worked for a company (big player in its field) and had an interview with another (a giant in its field) where they had systems that ran on all of the major db's - SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and Sybase. These db's contain(ed) neither triggers, SPs, PL/SQL, Transact SQL or any other proprietary features of any of these db's. The only coding that varied between the db's was how to get an autoinc/generator/sequence value and that was in some sort of middle layer. They did make use of DRI in the db creation scripts. I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets. I think that it's only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the switch to cheaper or Open Source db's. Hence my .sig - I am trying to learn Oracle because that's where the jobs are, being DBA to underutilised db's... surfing here I come... 8-) Paul... -- plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__ XP Pro, SP 2, Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.) Interbase 6.0.2.0; When asking database related questions, please give other posters some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL. The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!"). Thanks. Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend time analysing and attempting to help, please do not top post.

Paul wrote: > DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote: > > >> There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are >> slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a >> reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site. >> It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for >> 7x24. And then there's that little problem with government >> requirements around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time. > > > I have worked for a company (big player in its field) and had an > interview with another (a giant in its field) where they had systems > that ran on all of the major db's - SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and > Sybase. > > These db's contain(ed) neither triggers, SPs, PL/SQL, Transact SQL or > any other proprietary features of any of these db's. The only coding > that varied between the db's was how to get an > autoinc/generator/sequence value and that was in some sort of middle > layer. They did make use of DRI in the db creation scripts. > > > I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but > the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's > when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets. But presumably large bit buckets. I'm not very up to date on PostGres and mysql features, but do OSS DB's support all these management operations that can be done in parallel to production operation? In Oracle you can create partitions on the fly without interrupting operations etc. > I think that it's > only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to > the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of > the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the > switch to cheaper or Open Source db's. If they deliver the same robustness - it's not only about functionality features. Kind regards robert

Paul wrote: > I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), We both are. > but > the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's > when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets. > > Paul... I have seen this too. But the solution is not to purchase an inadequate product. The solution is to replace inadequate IT management and, if necessary, inadequate IT staff. If you can use 3x5 cards don't buy a computer. If you can use a flat file don't use a commercial RDBMS But if data is a valuable asset it needs to be treated as one. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

"Jurgen Haan" <jurgen@fake.dom> wrote in message news:429f0643$0$17153$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > Stu Charlton wrote: >> >> So the question is whether OSS eventually sucks the direct revenue out >> of the market. If there are enough vested interests to fund that sort >> of effort, sure, it could happen. Apache is a great example of that >> effect. I think the next area probably will be operating systems. >> Databases will take longer, if ever. >> > > I think databases will happen sooner than you think. > Hardware is getting cheaper while getting faster, > storage is getting cheaper while getting faster > OSS Databases are getting faster and more stable while still being free. > The one point missing in OSS databases is support. > It's so damn hard to get any support on OSS databases. > > That's why many companies still go for the mainstream databases, > for the false sense of safety (I pay for it so it must be good) and for > the support (which I still think is one of the most important issues). There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems - RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and hardware support vendors.

"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: >There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems - >RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have >encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or >IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and >hardware support vendors. Given that computers are becoming more and more of a commodity, that begs the question of why Red Hat doesn't supply PC's (for example) and guarantee both the hardware and s/ware. I believe that one can purchase Dell machines with Red Hat preinstalled - I would imagine that getting support for this config would not be difficult? Paul... -- plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__ XP Pro, SP 2, Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.) Interbase 6.0.2.0; When asking database related questions, please give other posters some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL. The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!"). Thanks. Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend time analysing and attempting to help, please do not top post.

"Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote: >> I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but >> the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's >> when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets. >But presumably large bit buckets. Indeed. > I'm not very up to date on PostGres http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages > and mysql features, MySQL features can be got from their site. They only recently introducted DRI, triggers, SP's and a whole raft of other stuff which take it out of the "toy" db, good only for serving 100 web pages a day. I'd wait a while to see if the truckload of new features that they've introduced work properly. > but do OSS DB's support all these management operations >that can be done in parallel to production operation? In Oracle you can >create partitions on the fly without interrupting operations etc. OSS db's trail behind the likes of Oracle obviously, but how many people actually require hot repartitioning? I don't think PGSQL supports this (they introduced tablespaces in version 8), so maybe they trail in terms of functionality. They are ambitious and have lots of plans http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html I have on occasion gone into work on a Saturday/Sunday to perform large scale operations on db's other than Oracle which couldn't be done hot. I got double pay and a day in lieu - I agree that it's better if the db can do it on the fly, but it's an issue which can be worked around. What did Oracle practitioners do before this became possible? >> I think that it's >> only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to >> the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of >> the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the >> switch to cheaper or Open Source db's. >If they deliver the same robustness - it's not only about functionality >features. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39173013,00.htm suggests robustness to me. Firebird is also very solid, having 20 years of commercial development behind it. Paul... > robert -- plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__ XP Pro, SP 2, Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.) Interbase 6.0.2.0; When asking database related questions, please give other posters some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL. The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!"). Thanks. Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend time analysing and attempting to help, please do not top post.

DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote: >> but >> the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's >> when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets. >I have seen this too. But the solution is not to purchase an inadequate >product. The solution is to replace inadequate IT management and, if >necessary, inadequate IT staff. What would your solution be in the case of a company that has to support 4 db backends, with issues like clients who say "We've damn well paid for X, so if your system doesn't do X, we'll purchase from somebody who does"? 4 times the programming, 4 times the testing, the potential for the introduction of bugs is increased almost exponentially. >If you can use 3x5 cards don't buy a computer. >If you can use a flat file don't use a commercial RDBMS >But if data is a valuable asset it needs to be treated as one. Oh, the data is valuable alright and in use by Blue Chip companies across the world, many of whom would be clients of a certain large aerospace manufacturing company situated in Washington State that you can't talk about - United Airlines is an example of such client. It could well be that the UA dba's are tearing their hair out, but they're probably not the ones who made the purchasing decision about the s/ware, and rocking the boat mightn't do their careers any good. I once worked for a company that had paid approx. 500.000 dollars (+ 50.000 a year support) for a programme that a colleague and I could have written in 6 - 9 months (well, the functionality we actually used, anyway). One of the tables had 35.000 (that's right thirty five thousand fields) - when I tried to get the system dumped (most of what it was supposed to be doing was in fact being done by people in Ops using Excel), I was chastised when I was overpersistent. When I turned in my resignation, the company folded 3 months later. The company that sold the rubbish programme is celebrating it's 22nd birthday. Paul... -- plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__ XP Pro, SP 2, Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.) Interbase 6.0.2.0; When asking database related questions, please give other posters some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL. The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!"). Thanks. Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend time analysing and attempting to help, please do not top post.

"Paul" <paulsnewsgroups@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:68bu91d149m6oc9gsdrl07h363ies7muhn@4ax.com... > > > "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > > >>There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems - >>RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have >>encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or >>IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and >>hardware support vendors. > > > Given that computers are becoming more and more of a commodity, that > begs the question of why Red Hat doesn't supply PC's (for example) and > guarantee both the hardware and s/ware. I believe that one can > purchase Dell machines with Red Hat preinstalled - I would imagine > that getting support for this config would not be difficult? What a great example! I have a customer in Newcastle (under Lyme, not upon Tyne) who is running OnLine on RedHat on Dell. Needless to say the Online performs perfectly, but the box sporaically and spontaneously reboots. RedHat say its a problem with the hardwre and they should upgrade the firmware. Dell say it's a problem with the OS and they should patch it. The customer wishes he'd bought IBM, or Sun, or HP .... The point is you can buy support for it, but that doesn't avoid inter-supplier finger-pointing ...

Neil Truby wrote: > There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems - > RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have > encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or > IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and > hardware support vendors. Seen that too. I think that is one of the things fueling the interest in Apple. An open source operating system that is fully supported. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Paul wrote: > Firebird is also very solid, having 20 > years of commercial development behind it. But that is not enough. Here in the US one MUST think Sarbanes-Oxley. If you are not you are at huge risk of finding yourself discussing your lack of consideration with federal law enforcement officers while under oath. Systems that are "solid" are not necessarily SarbOx compliant. We are at this moment watching a vendor whose upcoming product release seems to be an unwitting attempt at self-destruction over what many are seeing as an inability to be SarbOx compliant. The buzz is all over the big accounting firms and consultancies right now. Note: In an effort to keep flaming out of this thread no I will not name the product. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Paul wrote: > "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > > > >There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems - > >RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have > >encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or > >IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and > >hardware support vendors. > > > Given that computers are becoming more and more of a commodity, that > begs the question of why Red Hat doesn't supply PC's (for example) and > guarantee both the hardware and s/ware. I believe that one can > purchase Dell machines with Red Hat preinstalled - I would imagine > that getting support for this config would not be difficult? they gotta do just the hardware first: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/comments/2004/10/22/81712/287/12 jg -- @home.com is bogus. "We thought it would be quite neat to do work on piranhas because so little is known about them. But this notion that they were fearsome fish, frightened of nothing - we had to revise that. They're basically like regular fish - with large teeth." - Anne Magurran

Paul wrote: >>I have seen this too. But the solution is not to purchase an inadequate >>product. The solution is to replace inadequate IT management and, if >>necessary, inadequate IT staff. > > What would your solution be in the case of a company that has to > support 4 db backends, with issues like clients who say "We've damn > well paid for X, so if your system doesn't do X, we'll purchase from > somebody who does"? > > 4 times the programming, 4 times the testing, the potential for the > introduction of bugs is increased almost exponentially. US or other country? It matters. In the US we invite the CFO to the meeting. We say something like this: "The current system is not SarbOx compliant. Would you rather spend money on being compliant with a federal law or risk going to jail." So far not a single CFO I have met was willing to risk his or her own neck. Nor would I in their position. >>If you can use 3x5 cards don't buy a computer. >>If you can use a flat file don't use a commercial RDBMS >>But if data is a valuable asset it needs to be treated as one. > > Oh, the data is valuable alright and in use by Blue Chip companies > across the world, many of whom would be clients of a certain large > aerospace manufacturing company situated in Washington State that you > can't talk about - United Airlines is an example of such client. > > It could well be that the UA dba's are tearing their hair out, but > they're probably not the ones who made the purchasing decision about > the s/ware, and rocking the boat mightn't do their careers any good. > > Paul... No but on purely theoretical grounds, because I know we are NOT talking about United Airlines, they MUST be compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley. Compliance is not optional ... it is mandatory. So refer to the simulated conversation above. Management can not and will not break federal law to save a few dollars. It just isn't going to happen. Not after Enron. Not after WorldCom. Not after .... -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > In the US we invite the CFO to the meeting. We say something like this: > "The current system is not SarbOx compliant. Would you rather spend > money on being compliant with a federal law or risk going to jail." > > So far not a single CFO I have met was willing to risk his or her own > neck. Nor would I in their position. > Let's see a list of CFO names or company names where you have been involved in a discussion like this or should we guess that this is "hypothetical" or a contrived example.

hpuxrac wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > > >>In the US we invite the CFO to the meeting. We say something like this: >>"The current system is not SarbOx compliant. Would you rather spend >>money on being compliant with a federal law or risk going to jail." >> >>So far not a single CFO I have met was willing to risk his or her own >>neck. Nor would I in their position. >> > > > Let's see a list of CFO names or company names where you have been > involved in a discussion like this or should we guess that this is > "hypothetical" or a contrived example. Not contrived but protected by NDA when it comes to legal compliance and security issues: This is legal compliance so the names will not be divulged. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Jurgen Haan wrote: > There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are > slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a > reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site. > It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24. > And then there's that little problem with government requirements > around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time. 24x7 is actually no problem with OSS db's like Postgres. At the company where I work we have a DB2 DB and a Postgres DB running. Neither of them have to be taken down during maintenance. Neither databases crash. DB2 is way faster than Postgres. But as I stated earlier hardware is getting faster in an enormous rate, making the speed less important (note the less here, it will still be important). The size of the database it not a problem with postgres, terrabyte database... ok.. What's a big problem with postgres (and actually one of the main reasons why we don't use it for our sensitive information) and that's that postgres is extremely unrelyable in high TPS situations. Scalability with OSS databases just plain sucks (if any). But still I think OSS databases are to be reconed with. It's the same as the early 90s, Linux, what a cute little project, but it surely will never be of any importance. Now, just take a look a the linux population among Internet web servers. -R-