Re: Informix business grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2)
Not a technical support thread but a discussion sparked by an IBM blog post claiming IDS license revenue grew by double digits in H1 2006. Posters speculated DB2 growth was flat by comparison, argued IDS's lighter resource use would be an advantage under IBM's new Processor Value Unit (PVU) pricing, and debated benchmarking. Christine Normile countered that PVU/sub-capacity pricing only helps with dedicated or partitioned servers and requires Tivoli License Manager on a narrower platform list; others said most shops do run dedicated database servers, while Neil Truby defended partitioning for dev/test and HDR standby boxes. Opinion piece only, with no problem resolved.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
It is funny to see how Informix performs without serious marketing from IBM and how DB2 seems to stagnate. If you look at the official IBM quarter sales numbers for Q2/2006 they had an increase of 4% in segment middleware (Websphere, Information Management, Tivoli, Lotus and Rational) compared to Q2/2005. Websphere (17 %) and Tivoli (12 %) have been the key drivers in this segment and even Rational (8 %) and Lotus (6 %) performed well. So if Informix as a member of the Information management portfolio had also a double digit growth rate (in Q1 it has been 22%, don't know the excact number for Q2) I guess that the DB2 growth rate is very very low or even declining. This should be a alarm signal for IBM. However they might notice that a little bit later when the fog around the new DB2 Viper release has cleared out and they are faced with the reality and realize that the XML hype around Viper tends to be the same flop as the object-relational technology in the middle of the nineties. Even worser for DB2 will be be the PVU (Processor Value Unit) pricing coming from IBM. Reality shows that IDS based on the elegant multithreading technology consumes less hardware resources than a comparable DB2 installation. So customers will save a lot of money in terms of hardware and software pricing (PVU) if they favor IDS instead of DB2. Performing reality based benchmarks is the best strategy to proof this and customers should invest the time to do this before making a database decision. At the Infobahn roadshow IBM made a lot of promises regarding a better, serious marketing for IDS. We will see if those promises are more than lip services and will get reality in front of the launch of the next IDS release (10.5). If yes, I expect a bright future for IDS -:) Tambi Dude wrote: > Looks like our dear ol Informix is alive and kicking well. Per IBM site, > license > revenue grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2). > > > http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/gbowerman/20060802 > > " > The rise of Informix > > The Q2 numbers are in and Informix Dynamic Server experienced another > large increase in revenue to build on the growth of Q1. As usual the > details are not released publicly but I am officially allowed to say, and > I quote.. > > > IDS license revenue grew by double digits in the first half of 2006 "
Eric Herber" <eric@I-hate-spam.org> wrote in message news:eb1oku$rk8$1@online.de... > Even worser for DB2 will be be the PVU (Processor Value Unit) > pricing coming from IBM. Reality shows that IDS based on > the elegant multithreading technology consumes less hardware > resources than a comparable DB2 installation. So customers > will save a lot of money in terms of hardware and software > pricing (PVU) if they favor IDS instead of DB2. Expect IBM to hammer home this point. > Performing > reality based benchmarks is the best strategy to proof this > and customers should invest the time to do this before making > a database decision. Only the largest companies have the resources to do this, even assuming the vendor will let them have the relevant software. This is why vendors time and effort in benchmarks. Excpet for Informix of course.
Eric, Excellent commentary! I am curious about the licensing model in light of every increasing complexity in CPU engineering. There is now dual-core everywhere, and getting to quad-core is not too far off, so the CPU-based licensing model is getting rather old. A lot of software is now being sold by specint ( www.spec.org ) rather than CPU. I am also seeing a lot of press for DB2 but nothing for Informix at all, not even anecdotal references. Curious why the open source community knows nothing about the new Informix. Even Oracle has a big involvement in the open source movement, very curious why still there is nothing for Informix--very little to nothing for DB2 as well. DB2 seems to get a lot of press, but not as much interest from open source community as what I've seen for Oracle. Both DB2 and Informix seem to come from a company too interested in Eclipse and Derby but not much else, and even these items don't get much press. Questions: 1. Is multi-threading the only hook Informix has? Every product has a hook that sells the product. 2. What is the developer angle? What is the "thing" that developers are going to get excited about with Informix? 3. What is the increase in sales? Who is buying Informix and WHY? 4. Why are there no press articles about Informix? Eric Herber wrote: > It is funny to see how Informix performs without serious > marketing from IBM and how DB2 seems to stagnate. > > If you look at the official IBM quarter sales numbers > for Q2/2006 they had an increase of 4% in segment > middleware (Websphere, Information Management, Tivoli, > Lotus and Rational) compared to Q2/2005. > Websphere (17 %) and Tivoli (12 %) have been the key > drivers in this segment and even Rational (8 %) and > Lotus (6 %) performed well. > So if Informix as a member of the Information management > portfolio had also a double digit growth rate (in Q1 it has > been 22%, don't know the excact number for Q2) I guess > that the DB2 growth rate is very very low or even > declining. > > This should be a alarm signal for IBM. However they might > notice that a little bit later when the fog around the new > DB2 Viper release has cleared out and they are faced with the > reality and realize that the XML hype around Viper tends to > be the same flop as the object-relational technology in the > middle of the nineties. > > Even worser for DB2 will be be the PVU (Processor Value Unit) > pricing coming from IBM. Reality shows that IDS based on > the elegant multithreading technology consumes less hardware > resources than a comparable DB2 installation. So customers > will save a lot of money in terms of hardware and software > pricing (PVU) if they favor IDS instead of DB2. Performing > reality based benchmarks is the best strategy to proof this > and customers should invest the time to do this before making > a database decision. > > At the Infobahn roadshow IBM made a lot of promises regarding > a better, serious marketing for IDS. We will see if those > promises are more than lip services and will get reality > in front of the launch of the next IDS release (10.5). > If yes, I expect a bright future for IDS -:) > > > Tambi Dude wrote: >> Looks like our dear ol Informix is alive and kicking well. Per IBM site, >> license >> revenue grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2). >> >> >> http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/gbowerman/20060802 >> >> " >> The rise of Informix >> >> The Q2 numbers are in and Informix Dynamic Server experienced another >> large increase in revenue to build on the growth of Q1. As usual the >> details are not released publicly but I am officially allowed to say, and >> I quote.. >> >> >> IDS license revenue grew by double digits in the first half of 2006 " > >
I do not see PVU pricing as a Godsend for IDS. Unfortunately, PVU pricing only benefits the product if companies run a dedicated database server either on a stand-alone box or as a partition within a server. Running a standalone server is not practical for >80% of dataserver needs due to the capacity of machines today, especially vis-a-vis IDS's very elegant design. Running as a partition places severe limits on the platforms that can be used...to qualify for sub- capacity pricing (required for partitioned systems), a customer must also install IBM Tivoli license manager (ITLM) and provide periodic reports to ensure compliance. The ITLM requirement restricts subcapacity pricing to IBM's supported platform list which is much narrower than IDS's supported platform list. Christine Normile On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:23 AM, Neil Truby wrote: > Eric Herber" <eric@I-hate-spam.org> wrote in message > news:eb1oku$rk8$1@online.de... > >> Even worser for DB2 will be be the PVU (Processor Value Unit) >> pricing coming from IBM. Reality shows that IDS based on >> the elegant multithreading technology consumes less hardware >> resources than a comparable DB2 installation. So customers >> will save a lot of money in terms of hardware and software >> pricing (PVU) if they favor IDS instead of DB2. > > Expect IBM to hammer home this point. > >> Performing >> reality based benchmarks is the best strategy to proof this >> and customers should invest the time to do this before making >> a database decision. > > Only the largest companies have the resources to do this, even > assuming the > vendor will let them have the relevant software. This is why > vendors time > and effort in benchmarks. Excpet for Informix of course. > > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Christine Normile Analyst INFORMRme Magazine 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 1.210.438.7736 mobile christine@MyINFORM-me.com
Not sure about 80% comment, but I can't think of any of our customers that don't run dedicated data servers Cheers Paul Paul Watson Tel: +44 1414161772 Mob: +44 7818003457 Web: www.oninit.com GO FURTHER with DB2 GET THERE FASTER with Informix. Attend the IDUG 2006 European Conference. Vienna, Austria. 2-6 October 2006 Visit http://www.iiug.org/conf for more information. ________________________________ From: Christine Normile [mailto:christine@myinform-me.com] Posted At: 05 August 2006 13:39 Posted To: comp.databases.informix Conversation: Informix business grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2) Subject: Re: Informix business grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2) I do not see PVU pricing as a Godsend for IDS. Unfortunately, PVU pricing only benefits the product if companies run a dedicated database server either on a stand-alone box or as a partition within a server. Running a standalone server is not practical for >80% of dataserver needs due to the capacity of machines today, especially vis-a-vis IDS's very elegant design. Running as a partition places severe limits on the platforms that can be used...to qualify for sub-capacity pricing (required for partitioned systems), a customer must also install IBM Tivoli license manager (ITLM) and provide periodic reports to ensure compliance. The ITLM requirement restricts subcapacity pricing to IBM's supported platform list which is much narrower than IDS's supported platform list. Christine Normile On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:23 AM, Neil Truby wrote: Eric Herber" <eric@I-hate-spam.org> wrote in message news:eb1oku$rk8$1@online.de... Even worser for DB2 will be be the PVU (Processor Value Unit) pricing coming from IBM. Reality shows that IDS based on the elegant multithreading technology consumes less hardware resources than a comparable DB2 installation. So customers will save a lot of money in terms of hardware and software pricing (PVU) if they favor IDS instead of DB2. Expect IBM to hammer home this point. Performing reality based benchmarks is the best strategy to proof this and customers should invest the time to do this before making a database decision. Only the largest companies have the resources to do this, even assuming the vendor will let them have the relevant software. This is why vendors time and effort in benchmarks. Excpet for Informix of course. _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Christine Normile Analyst INFORMRme Magazine 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 1.210.438.7736 mobile christine@MyINFORM-me.com
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 14:05 -0500, Paul Watson wrote: > Not sure about 80% comment, but I can't think of any of our customers > that don't run dedicated data servers My response to that statement as well; every single shop I know of runs a dedicated database server. I'd counter that the complexity of modern apps in addition to cheap and abundantly available hardware makes it unreasonable not to simply dedicate a box to each significant service/application.
"Adam Tauno Williams" <adam@morrison-ind.com> wrote in message news:mailman.151.1154837614.20706.informix-list@iiug.org... > On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 14:05 -0500, Paul Watson wrote: >> Not sure about 80% comment, but I can't think of any of our customers >> that don't run dedicated data servers > > My response to that statement as well; every single shop I know of runs > a dedicated database server. > > I'd counter that the complexity of modern apps in addition to cheap and > abundantly available hardware makes it unreasonable not to simply > dedicate a box to each significant service/application. On the contrary, we, and therefore our customers, have been using "partitioning" technology for years. Some situations where it can be very beneficial are: - multiple dev and support environments where on occasion, but not all the time, you might wish to set up a UAT environment for volume and stress testing with an identical config to live - where a 2nd powerful server is available for component failure or other standby purposes. Why have a pwerful, production-spec'd server sitting idly by as an HDR secondary and itherwise idle all day, when you can partition it and use it as a dev/test/support environment too? - the customer wishes to take advanatge of a hardware vendor's special offer to buy more cpus/memory than he needs right now for scalability reasons, but wishes to contain his software licensing costs.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:36:09 +0200, Eric Herber <eric@I-hate-spam.org> wrote: >It is funny to see how Informix performs without serious >marketing from IBM and how DB2 seems to stagnate. > >If you look at the official IBM quarter sales numbers >for Q2/2006 they had an increase of 4% in segment >middleware (Websphere, Information Management, Tivoli, >Lotus and Rational) compared to Q2/2005. >Websphere (17 %) and Tivoli (12 %) have been the key >drivers in this segment and even Rational (8 %) and >Lotus (6 %) performed well. >So if Informix as a member of the Information management >portfolio had also a double digit growth rate (in Q1 it has >been 22%, don't know the excact number for Q2) I guess >that the DB2 growth rate is very very low or even >declining. > >This should be a alarm signal for IBM. However they might >notice that a little bit later when the fog around the new >DB2 Viper release has cleared out and they are faced with the >reality and realize that the XML hype around Viper tends to >be the same flop as the object-relational technology in the >middle of the nineties. > >Even worser for DB2 will be be the PVU (Processor Value Unit) >pricing coming from IBM. Reality shows that IDS based on >the elegant multithreading technology consumes less hardware >resources than a comparable DB2 installation. So customers >will save a lot of money in terms of hardware and software >pricing (PVU) if they favor IDS instead of DB2. Performing >reality based benchmarks is the best strategy to proof this >and customers should invest the time to do this before making >a database decision. But I'm sure that IBM will give discounts for hardware if the customer really, really needs DB2. IBM does sell hardware, don't they? 8-) JWC
The value and power of partitioning technology will not effect IBM's ability or willingness to price it's products such that partitioning is cost effective for Informix customers. As stated, IBM only allows sub-capacity pricing for IBM supported platforms and specifically those platforms supported by Tivoli License Manager. On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:39 AM, Neil Truby wrote: > "Adam Tauno Williams" <adam@morrison-ind.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.151.1154837614.20706.informix-list@iiug.org... >> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 14:05 -0500, Paul Watson wrote: >>> Not sure about 80% comment, but I can't think of any of our >>> customers >>> that don't run dedicated data servers >> >> My response to that statement as well; every single shop I know >> of runs >> a dedicated database server. >> >> I'd counter that the complexity of modern apps in addition to >> cheap and >> abundantly available hardware makes it unreasonable not to simply >> dedicate a box to each significant service/application. > > On the contrary, we, and therefore our customers, have been using > "partitioning" technology for years. Some situations where it can > be very > beneficial are: > > - multiple dev and support environments where on occasion, but not > all the > time, you might wish to set up a UAT environment for volume and stress > testing with an identical config to live > > - where a 2nd powerful server is available for component failure or > other > standby purposes. Why have a pwerful, production-spec'd server > sitting idly > by as an HDR secondary and itherwise idle all day, when you can > partition it > and use it as a dev/test/support environment too? > > - the customer wishes to take advanatge of a hardware vendor's > special offer > to buy more cpus/memory than he needs right now for scalability > reasons, but > wishes to contain his software licensing costs. > > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Christine Normile Analyst INFORMRme Magazine 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 1.210.438.7736 mobile christine@MyINFORM-me.com
>> "Christine Normile" <christine@myinform-me.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.150.1154802853.20706.informix-list@iiug.org... I do not see PVU pricing as a Godsend for IDS. Unfortunately, PVU pricing only benefits the product if companies run a dedicated database server either on a stand-alone box or as a partition within a server. Running a standalone server is not practical for >80% of dataserver needs due to the capacity of machines today, especially vis-a-vis IDS's very elegant design. Running as a partition places severe limits on the platforms that can be used...to qualify for sub-capacity pricing (required for partitioned systems), a customer must also install IBM Tivoli license manager (ITLM) and provide periodic reports to ensure compliance. IBM's sub-capacity licensing, as you call it, is aleady way behind the times compared to Oracle. Regards PVU - it's been out for 10 days now and I've already seen it cause enormous confusion even with IBM sales specialists. It's a typically over-complex response from IBM to a situation which cries out for clarification and simplicity.