Re: Senior Oracle DBA now Learning Informix by Request of Company:IThought Informix was Dead?
Not a technical support thread — it's an Oracle-vs-Informix flame/debate spun off a question about learning Informix. Participants argue over relative performance (including TimesTen and C-ISAM/MySQL comparisons), whether Informix is a 'core' product for IBM versus DB2, IBM's lack of marketing and web visibility for Informix, and whether Informix could win back the SMB market. Opinions include an Informix reseller noting flat install base despite revenue growth. No technical problem is posed and no resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Mark Townsend schreef: > Well - what about multiple production and development instances on 2 big > Superdomes with around 65 TB of managed storage between them, with 2 > DBA's ? Close enough ? Ex Informix customer by the way. > how about informix running faster on a 5 times smaller machine then obstacle. Superboer.
oh i forgot, Obstacle was kicked out because of that..... Superboer. Superboer schreef: > Mark Townsend schreef: > > Well - what about multiple production and development instances on 2 big > > Superdomes with around 65 TB of managed storage between them, with 2 > > DBA's ? Close enough ? Ex Informix customer by the way. > > > > > how about informix running faster on a 5 times smaller machine then > obstacle. > > > Superboer.
Superboer wrote: > Mark Townsend schreef: >> Well - what about multiple production and development instances on 2 big >> Superdomes with around 65 TB of managed storage between them, with 2 >> DBA's ? Close enough ? Ex Informix customer by the way. >> > > > how about informix running faster on a 5 times smaller machine then > obstacle. > > > Superboer. How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? Do you have a link to the benchmark you reference? -- 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: > How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- 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: >> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? > > Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. Quite. C-ISAM arguably runs much faster than IDS - there are fewer overheads - but there are good reasons why C-ISAM is just used by legacy stuff now. Ben.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: >> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? > > Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. And Informix isn't IBM's. ;-) -- 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: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> DA Morgan said: >>> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? >> >> Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. > > And Informix isn't IBM's. ;-) It depends. If you mean: "was invented here and is all we know", then no, it isn't; if you mean: "brings in sufficient revenue to be regarded as an equal peer to the one we do know", then yes, it is. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
"Among tasks occupying five hours or more each week are database administration (41%), ongoing maintenance/operations (29%), performance tuning (29%)" As quoted from that IOUG survey. I'm curious enough to find out how many hours a week IIUG DBA's spend on the above tasks. It seems strange to me that with all the 3rd party tools and Oracle's legendary easy of use that you would spend that much time on anything. When I DBA a site, I might spend 40 hours a week doing the above ... for a week. After that, I'd spend my time dreaming up ways to keep myself occupied. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- 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: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> DA Morgan said: >>>> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? >>> Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. >> And Informix isn't IBM's. ;-) > > It depends. If you mean: Then let me clarify my intent. I mean I don't see any marketing and sales efforts in on this continent. For example go to http://www.ibm.com In search put "database" On the first page of ten results 10 are for DB2 and one mentions Informix. Try the same thing on page and the next and the next. The next time Informix is mentioned is item 48. Everything else is DB2. -- 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: > Then let me clarify my intent. I mean I don't see any marketing and > sales efforts in on this continent. IBM doesn't market anything. They bask in the reflected glory of their laurels and wait for people to fight through the red tape for the pleasure of doing business with them. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
Ben, that's an interesting point you bring up. ISAM is the core of MySQL, which seems to be doing quite well in its space. The beauty of ISAM as a product is that it is a great entry point for a customer to get into more sophisticated products. Informix Standard Engine for example, gets a customer excited about a great product, and allows them to be successful without a lot of hand-holding. Once they have success with it, they learn there are "better" offerings such as IDS. This is why I still don't understand the blindness of IBM to the success of PHP/MySQL, and how they have missed the nexis Standard Engine has with MySQL. IBM just doesn't get it. Not every customer needs an IDS shared memory dbspaced engine. MySQL is proof of that. It can run circles around MS-SQL-Server, DB2, and I'd even venture to say, Informix, simply because the install takes less than 2 minutes, the docs are easy to find, the tools are simple, and the customer can be up and running, developing, all for the total cost of nothing but the hardware and infrastructure to run it. But MySQL has limits, and when you start working with big data, it can get sluggish, slow down, and other solutions start coming into play. IBM needs to get with the program and stop trying to shove one-choice solutions out there with no plan or idea of how today's market is really working. Instead of only offering IDS, they need to really pump up the volume on SE as a great place to start. Happy Holidays! -DE- Ben Thompson wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> DA Morgan said: >>> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? >> >> Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. > > Quite. C-ISAM arguably runs much faster than IDS - there are fewer > overheads - but there are good reasons why C-ISAM is just used by legacy > stuff now. > > Ben.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: >> Then let me clarify my intent. I mean I don't see any marketing and >> sales efforts in on this continent. > > IBM doesn't market anything. They bask in the reflected glory of their > laurels and wait for people to fight through the red tape for the pleasure > of doing business with them. Not the case with their consulting division where the real dollars are made. Not the case with their hardware either. But in the database arena that would seem to be the case. The only IBM database marketing materials I've ever seen ... were posted on US 101 just outside the Oracle campus. Not exactly a message intended to sell new licenses. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> >Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > DA Morgan said: > >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >>> DA Morgan said: > >>>> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? > >>> Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. > >> And Informix isn't IBM's. ;-) > > > > It depends. If you mean: > >Then let me clarify my intent. I mean I don't see any marketing and >sales efforts in on this continent. > >For example go to http://www.ibm.com >In search put "database" >On the first page of ten results 10 are for DB2 and one mentions Informix. >Try the same thing on page and the next and the next. >The next time Informix is mentioned is item 48. >Everything else is DB2. Silly boy, do you think that IBM's SWG's IM pillar runs their own website under IBM? ;-) (Hint: SWG rebranded DB2 to IM years ago and yet its still not reflected by the company. ;-) That said, Informix is a major contributor to the pillar in both revenue and technology. You can't say the same for TimesTen. Like I said, Oracle's purchase was a mercy kill. Now if you wanted to compare TimesTen against an Informix purchase, look at Cloudscape. Its a tad more apropriate. Cheers and Merry X-mas! -G _________________________________________________________________ >From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message news:1166807137.475781@bubbleator.drizzle.com... > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> DA Morgan said: >>> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? >> >> Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. > > And Informix isn't IBM's. ;-) I think we all accept this. I don't know why you go on so. My business makes decent money reselling Informix. I'd love to see IBM advertise it properly, but I know that when all is said and done Informix is not IBM's flagship database. Personally I strongly believe that this is a mistake on IBM's part, as Informix could be a serious force again in the SMB market that IBM so covets. But we are where we are. So the reality is that, double-digit revenue growth not withstanding, the actual install base is stagnant. As I say, I make money from Informix, but I know that, barring a fundamental strategic shift on the part of IBM, we as a business have to develop other, non-Informix strings to our bow or I'll be living in a cardboard box in 10 years' time.
Neil Truby wrote: > "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message > news:1166807137.475781@bubbleator.drizzle.com... >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> DA Morgan said: >>>> How about TimesTen running one hundred times faster than that? >>> Yes, but TimesTen ISN'T Oracle's core database. >> And Informix isn't IBM's. ;-) > > I think we all accept this. I don't know why you go on so. > > My business makes decent money reselling Informix. I'd love to see IBM > advertise it properly, but I know that when all is said and done Informix is > not IBM's flagship database. Personally I strongly believe that this is a > mistake on IBM's part, as Informix could be a serious force again in the SMB > market that IBM so covets. But we are where we are. > > So the reality is that, double-digit revenue growth not withstanding, the > actual install base is stagnant. As I say, I make money from Informix, but > I know that, barring a fundamental strategic shift on the part of IBM, we > as a business have to develop other, non-Informix strings to our bow or > I'll be living in a cardboard box in 10 years' time. > > Have you tried UPDATE STATISTICS? Sorry... I couldn't resist! *<8o)