Re: Ok, call me silly...

dcruncher4@aim.com wrote: > In article <1213375989.512236@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... >> Really? Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to point >> me to the list of compatibility features in the latest release of >> Informix. > > so you give more importance to compatibility in SQL than compatibility > in features like RAC :-) > >> Here are the corresponding links from IBM for DB2 >> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0707rielau/ >> and Microsoft >> http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/c/4/dc4226a3-c258-4779-bc9d-72ed4a6d30e0/Running_Oracle_Applications_on_Microsoft_SQL_Server_2005.pdf >> >> Thank you. No: Not my point at all. My point, the only point I've been making in this thread, is that IBM is not giving Informix the respect it deserves. That some here haven't seen sunlight in so long they think that is a criticism of their sacred cow is evidence of a cognition problem not a value judgment about RAC or any other feature in either product. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

In article <1213380586.945676@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... >No: Not my point at all. My point, the only point I've been making in >this thread, is that IBM is not giving Informix the respect it deserves. > And that by putting following features in Informix and not in DB2 as yet:- 1. Ability for shared disk between two instances 2. Ability for any mode to do updates 3. transparent failover to surviving nodes in a RAC like setup. 4. Writes don't block reads, reads don't block writes kinda read consistency of oracle.