Re: 11.50.xC4 Compression with workgroup edition?
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On May 20, 7:02 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Darren_Jac...@carmax.com wrote: > >> Did you consider all the factors? The fact that it costs money obviously >> reduces ROI. It doesn't necessarily turn it negative... The effort is part of >> the ROI equation. >> IDS 11.5 has a lot of other features relatively to older releases (depending on >> the version you're using). > > Fernando, > I think he did consider it and that's why he's hard pressed to justify > the investment. > > The fact that its adding $15.5K to the bottom line, one has to > consider other options that for 15.5K could also improve performance. > Oh and of course you have to consider not just the 15.5K, but also > increased maintenance costs going past year 1. > > Like I said, more memory or additional disk subsystems. > > I agree you have to look at the bigger picture and make your own > decision. IMHO, I don't know how to justify this feature. Personally I > think there are other features that are more important and that would > show a better ROI. Bigger companies have a very well known $/TB. When you know the storage savings the decision becomes trivial. Further there are hard constraints in how many kwh you can bump into a data center. This is doubly true in Manhattan. On the DB2 side compression sells like ice cream at the beach. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau SQL Architect DB2 for LUW IBM Toronto Lab
And don't forget that compression is free for with SQL Server 2008 Enterprise edition. Why is it at the very least not free for IDS Enterprise? On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Serge Rielau <srielau@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > On May 20, 7:02 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Darren_Jac...@carmax.com wrote: > > > >> Did you consider all the factors? The fact that it costs money obviously > >> reduces ROI. It doesn't necessarily turn it negative... The effort is > part of > >> the ROI equation. > >> IDS 11.5 has a lot of other features relatively to older releases > (depending on > >> the version you're using). > > > > Fernando, > > I think he did consider it and that's why he's hard pressed to justify > > the investment. > > > > The fact that its adding $15.5K to the bottom line, one has to > > consider other options that for 15.5K could also improve performance. > > Oh and of course you have to consider not just the 15.5K, but also > > increased maintenance costs going past year 1. > > > > Like I said, more memory or additional disk subsystems. > > > > I agree you have to look at the bigger picture and make your own > > decision. IMHO, I don't know how to justify this feature. Personally I > > think there are other features that are more important and that would > > show a better ROI. > Bigger companies have a very well known $/TB. > When you know the storage savings the decision becomes trivial. > Further there are hard constraints in how many kwh you can bump into a > data center. This is doubly true in Manhattan. > On the DB2 side compression sells like ice cream at the beach. > > Cheers > Serge > -- > Serge Rielau > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > IBM Toronto Lab > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >