Re: Informix Vs MS SQL for web solutions

From: Murph <brian.murphyNObrSPAM@firstactive.com.invalid> > >Questions Relating to Database Technologies > > >We are currenlty in the process of embarking on a number >of projects that involve web enabled technologies. These >include a web enabled CRM solution for in house customer >contact management and call centre support, Internet >mortgage applications facility, workflow and document >imaging and mortgage loan tracking information access via >the internet. Each of these projects has a common element >'ffffc3'ffffa2'ffffe2'ffff82'ffffac'ffffe2'ffff80'ffff9c Huh? >to access a single off-mainframe repository of data for >read or update purposes. Initial database volumes will be >quite small ie. less than 100,000 customers but growth is >expected though difficult to quantify. > >We are faced with a situation whereby individual solution >providers are recommending MS SQL server as the database >server. As I see it, there will be common elements in each >of the databases and it is expected that most of the >solutions will involve some data being transferred from our >mainframe data store down to the off-mainframe store (DB). >This is a concern for me for the following reasons : >1. Potentially multiple copies of data residing in >different places 'ffffc3'ffffa2'ffffe2'ffff82'ffffac'ffffe2'ffff80'ffff9c >the potential Um... for loss of consistency >etc. >2. Multiple databases requiring duplicate effort >3. Higher management overhead > >I therefore feel that it makes good sense to consolidate >these individual off-mainframe stores under the control of >a single DB engine. The obvious choices are MS SQL 6.5 or >7.0 or Informix 7.22. We currently have a significant MS-SQL 7.0 or Informix 7.31 or 9.20 >amount of Informix skills on hand due to our SAP and >Datawarehousing applications (both system and DBA >knowledge). We also have a significant amount of MS SQL 6.5 >here also though no DBA activities, performance monitoring >and tuning is done. Our treatment of each is different due >to the relative importance and recoverability of the >specific environments. I suppose you could consider MS SQL >as the poor relation >'ffffc3'ffffa2'ffffe2'ffff82'ffffac'ffffe2'ffff80'ffff9c it gets very Um...? little attention - it >is almost treated like MS >Acess'ffffc3'ffffa2'ffffe2'ffff82'ffffac'ffffe2'ffff84'ffffa2s big brother. Have you got QWERTY-itis? :-) >My questions are as follows : > >1. For a consolidated data store which has a high >dependence on availability and performance (due to call >centre an web access) which is the right move >'ffffc3'ffffa2'ffffe2'ffff82'ffffac'ffffe2'ffff80'ffff9c consolidate >under MS SQL or Informix ? Informix. Absolutely. >2. Which of the two will scale better or is this an issue >given low to moderate growth? It's *always* an issue. :-) >3. Is future proofing such an issue for a DB engine ? Of course. >4. Relative cost difference ie. ratio if such a thing >exists. Choice of platform would be Compaq, NT and SQL vs. >IBM RS/600, AIX and Informix ? Why not Compaq, Linux and Informix? Probably cost about the same as NT & SQLServer...ish. >5. Which will have the higher maintenance overhead ? Probably Informix. But it's worth it. And you already have the skills. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com