Very Computer

Hello, I am a MS SQL DBA of 5 years and I am interested in learning DB2. I
would like to get some advice from many of you who know DB2 in comparison to MS
SQL.

1)How different is DB2 from MS SQL? I know they are both ANSI 92 complaint
RDBMS and have lot of similarities. But how difficult is it to learn DB2 when
one already knows a lot about SQL and databases?

2)How well does DB2 perform in Windows2000? I know DB2 is released in three
varities (AIX, Linux, and WIndows2000), but how does it run on Windows? On
which OS platform does DB2 run the most on?

3)If you had an opportunity to learn a development language (JAVA or VB.net) or
another Database platform (Oracle or MS SQL), which one would you learn? Which
choice would be a better one for your career in the long run?

All advice would be appreciated

Jinsoo
MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

Hi Jinsoo

I'll try to answer from my point of view, but let me say that your
questions are quite ample.

 > Hello, I am a MS SQL DBA of 5 years and I am interested in learning
DB2. I
 > would like to get some advise from many of you who know DB2 in
comparison to MS
 > SQL.
 >
 > 1)How different is DB2 from MS SQL? I know they are both ANSI 92
complaint
 > RDBMS and have lot of similarities. But how difficult is it to learn
DB2 when
 > one already knows a lot about SQL and databases?

As of the standard they should be equal from the programming point of
view. There are differences in the implementation and in the
non-standard features. I don't know about MS SQL server so I will
briefly talk about DB2.
DB2 (together with Oracle) are the database engines of choice for the
most demanding applications, this is not discussed.
As SQL Server only runs in smaller computers (Wintel, Alpha) it's out of
the game. But it's not only the plattform. DB2 and Oracle have a much
longer tradition in solidness.
SQL Server is gaining market share with the help of the huge MS
propaganda, and because it's slowly becoming a little better each time.

 > 2)How well does DB2 perform in Windows2000? I know DB2 is released in
three
 > varities (AIX, Linux, and WIndows2000), but how does it run on
Windows? On
 > which OS platform does DB2 run the most on?

IBM has published several ground-breaking benchamrks ran on W2K, in
collaboration with MS. DB2 was certified for W2K before any other
database, including SQL Server.

 > 3)If you had an opportunity to learn a development language (JAVA or
VB.net) or
 > another Database platform (Oracle or MS SQL), which one would you
learn? Which
 > choice would be a better one for your career in the long run?

This one is tough to answer, Jinsoo. What do you want to be when you are
a grown-up?
IMHO dotnet will be very popular in the PC world, while Java and J2EE
already seems to be the plattform of choice for those huge enterprise
developments.
Once I beleived that Visual Basic would replace COBOL for all business
applications developed since then. I was convinced so I wrote a COBOL to
VB translator (a many moon trip!). It didn't happen.
Now Java seems to be doing it, but not as a better language but as part
of a plattform that lets you build web-like distributed applications.
So IMHO Java is for big enterprise projects (with DB2 or Oracle) and
dotnet for smaller PC apps with MS SQL Server or Access.
Of course there will be bigger applications built on the MS paradigm and
many talented developers will manage to do it.
But always there will be the hardware plattform limit. With dotnet you
develop in a PC and run it in a PC (or a hiper-clustered server forest).
With Java you develop in a steamy little Pentiun clon and run in any
other machine from the PC all the way to the hugest mainframe. Here is
the edge, but there are more demanding training steps to take: there is
no "point-and-click enterprise application building", if they say so
they are liers.

Good luck, Jinsoo!
All the roads lead to success if you are good.

Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

Jinsoo, there is an IBM RedBook about porting Sybase applications to
DB2. It was very useful to me when I had decided do switch to DB2.

Good luck!
Alexabder.

There is selfeducation course for experienced DBA's you can download at:
http://www-3.ibm.com/cgi-bin/software/track3.cgi?file=/software/data/...

Quote:

> 2)How well does DB2 perform in Windows2000? I know DB2 is released in three
> varities (AIX, Linux, and WIndows2000), but how does it run on Windows? On
> which OS platform does DB2 run the most on?

Not quite: there are many more DB2 flavors: HP/UX, Sun, Numac, OS/390, VM, VSE,
AS/400 and even for the Palm.
DB2 runs quite well on Win2000. It occupies several first places in the TPC
benchmarks. I wouldn't know for sure on which platform it runs the most.
Perhaps Windows, AIX and/or AS/400?

Quote:

> 3)If you had an opportunity to learn a development language (JAVA or VB.net) or
> another Database platform (Oracle or MS SQL), which one would you learn? Which
> choice would be a better one for your career in the long run?

I think Java is more widely used and of course it runs on many platforms.

Quote:

> All advice would be appreciated

> Jinsoo
> MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

--
Anton Versteeg
DB2 Specialist
IBM Netherlands

Juan, I appreciate your input, but I would like to add few points. Here it is:

Quote:>DB2 (together with Oracle) are the database engines of choice for the
>most demanding applications, this is not discussed.
>As SQL Server only runs in smaller computers (Wintel, Alpha) it's out of
>the game. But it's not only the plattform. DB2 and Oracle have a much
>longer tradition in solidness.
>SQL Server is gaining market share with the help of the huge MS
>propaganda, and because it's slowly >becoming a little better each time.

I don't disagree with any of your point except for the PC server hardware part.
Today's 8 CPU Xeon 2.4 Ghz Servers are more than powerful enough to support
most database needs. Additionally, the high end 32 CPU Xeon 2.4 Ghz Servers
surpasse the hardware performance of any Unix Servers, including the ones from
Sun.

Furthermore, the IBM/Sun microprocessors have not kept up with the Moore's law,
while Intel has (thanks to their economy of scale). The logical conclusion is
that Intel's Xeon Processors will someday surpass the best Processors from
IBM/Sun. As for the 64bit processing, Intel is coming out with new set of 64bit
processors.

Thanks
Jinsoo
MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD

2) DB2 runs very well on Windows. DB2 is fully-threaded on Windows, and our
extensive development experience on OS/2 from 1987-1995 (when we first shipped DB2
on NT) was helpful (OS/2 and NT have the same parentage). AIX and Windows are the
most popular server platforms for DB2. Windows is DB2's most popular client
platform.

To see bechmarks where we have cooperated with Microsoft to run DB2 on Windows:

http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/

3) Java - we have seen a lot of customers move from embedded SQL in COBOL/C
(1980's) to Microsoft tools (ODBC, VisualBasic, PowerBuilder, OLE: 1990's) to Java
with Stored Procedures as the * rdbms programming model.

Quote:> There is selfeducation course for experienced DBA's you can download at:

http://www-3.ibm.com/cgi-bin/software/track3.cgi?file=/software/data/...
fstudy/index.html&S_TACT=__S_TACT__&S_CMP=__S_CMP__

I tried to download this file (25MB) but I get a server fault message. Who
has this file ? Could I download this from a ftp-server or who could send
this to my ftp-server ?

Cheers for any help.
Sebastian

OK right, Jinsoo: let's accept PCs are the fastest hardware in town.
But it's not about speed.

Those big business paying a premium price for RS6000s and mainframes,
are they a bunch of morons? Why don't they run it on Windows PCs?  :-)
Would you fly a plane if it's systems were controlled by Windows
computers? What if they hang while taking off?

In fact, it's not about speed but about nines.
You are right, in fact VERY accurate whey you say that PCs are capable
of running most business systems. Actually, most database applications
can be handled by a single Pentium III with a couple SCSI drives for,
say, about 30 to 50 users that access the DB once every 10 or 20 seconds
  while doing their acounting work.

But PCs don't have as many nines as mainframes do. For example 99.9999
percent uptime.
Maybe a hospital is not so demanding in terms of performance as a kiddie
web site. But it demands all the nines you can buy. Like a bank.
DB2 is designed with the nines in mind. And big businesses that depend
on their systems to run multi million operations won't bet their neck to
a PC no matter it's speed or number of bits.

Imagine a world wide airline reservation system (does somebody knows how
is it built? I don't). But let's just imagine it.
At any time during the 24 hours of all days somebody is using it here in
America or in China. Now try to tell the sponsors that you need to
reboot it to add an IP address ...

It's not about size too. I imagine that it's possible to attach a lot of
drives to a PC, load there a very big database and publish it, letting
people access a single row every other hour.
Will it be able to handle a high update or insert rate without failing,
while under fire because of a high quety rate? Without losing a single
bit? Without rebooting every other day?
For example a telco logging calls, inserting rows in a database by the
millions per day.

It's a different world, not only a faster one.
Anyway, if you run DB2 on Xeons you have to  pay a premium for the license.
I work with PCs and I like them very much, but I'd rather wait for the
next fly :-)

Regards

Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

The old tale:
Once upon a time I was in the Renault's computer room in Buenos Aires.
One of my employees without notice turned off a disk drive which
happened to host the computer's virtual memory.
The computer went down like HAL 9000, and with the computer also came
down two or three hundred terminals distributed in many places of the
country and several batch jobs that were running locally. A line printer
stopped.
The operator restarted the computer and after a while everything was on
again without data loss.
The batch jobs restarted at the latest checkpoint.
The line printer ejected a page and restarted where it was stopped.
Nobody had to do nothing special.
This was great technology, solid operation, etc, etc.
It happened more than 25 years ago. Now that same technology has been
enhanced and perfectioned.
I'm sure that computer (maybe it was an IBM /370 model 175) was not as
fast as a Pentium IV but it handled hundreds of tasks without missing
one all day, and heavy batch jobs all night. Without failing.
PCs might be very fast, but they are still zillions light years from
this level of dependability.

Quote:>OK right, Jinsoo: let's accept PCs are the fastest hardware in town.
>But it's not about speed.

>Those big business paying a premium price for RS6000s and mainframes,
>are they a bunch of morons? Why don't they run it on Windows PCs?  :-)
>Would you fly a plane if it's systems were controlled by Windows
>computers? What if they hang while taking off?

>In fact, it's not about speed but about nines.
>You are right, in fact VERY accurate whey you say that PCs are capable
>of running most business systems. Actually, most database applications
>can be handled by a single Pentium III with a couple SCSI drives for,
>say, about 30 to 50 users that access the DB once every 10 or 20 seconds
>  while doing their acounting work.

>But PCs don't have as many nines as mainframes do. For example 99.9999
>percent uptime.

I don't know any non-clustered database running on any platform that can
achieve SIX nines (52 minutes of downtime a year). From my understanding, SIX
nine is only a theoratical possiblity. Most high availability environment
strive to achieve FIVE nines and they rarely attain it.

The reason is simple. Even the most routine scheduled maintenace will take up
more than 52 minutes a year. And ALL databases needs to be maintained.

Quote:>Maybe a hospital is not so demanding in terms of performance as a kiddie
>web site. But it demands all the nines you can buy. Like a bank.
>DB2 is designed with the nines in mind. And big businesses that depend
>on their systems to run multi million operations won't bet their neck to
>a PC no matter it's speed or number of bits.
>Imagine a world wide airline reservation system (does somebody knows how
>is it built? I don't). But let's just imagine it.
>At any time during the 24 hours of all days somebody is using it here in
>America or in China. Now try to tell the sponsors that you need to
>reboot it to add an IP address ...

>It's not about size too. I imagine that it's possible to attach a lot of
>drives to a PC, load there a very big database and publish it, letting
>people access a single row every other hour.
>Will it be able to handle a high update or insert rate without failing,
>while under fire because of a high quety rate? Without losing a single
>bit? Without rebooting every other day?

I think you mistakenly believe Windows2000 is as unstable as NT. I completely
agree with that Unix has a FAR longer track record in reliability and stability
than Windows 2000. But I can honestly say I have NEVER seen a Windows2000
Server crash on me (as opposed to NT) and I have been using it since its
release in year 2000. I am not claiming Windows 2000 can even challenge Unix in
reliability or stability, but Windows2000 is far from being unstable.

My prediction is that more people will begin to appreciate the Windows2000/.net
platform for its performance, pricing, as well as its stability.

For the future, Windows 2000 Datacenter will be released for the 64bit chip
from Intel. It is supposed to be SUPER stable and should give Unix its run the
money in stability. There are talks that Microsoft will take away all non
database essential component and it may have only the most basic GUI.

Quote:>It's a different world, not only a faster one.
>Anyway, if you run DB2 on Xeons you have to  pay a premium for the license.
>I work with PCs and I like them very much, but I'd rather wait for the
>next fly :-)

>Regards

>Juan Lanus
>TECNOSOL
>Argentina

I appreciate your input and it is a good one. You have given me a fresh
perspective. What do you think about learning Oracle instead of DB2?

Jinsoo
MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

Latest news from Gartner Group: IBM Overtakes Oracle in Total
Database Sales

--
John Li
Senior DBA

Posted via dBforums
http://dbforums.com

Jinsoo,

PMJI, some comments of my own:

Quote:

> I don't disagree with any of your point except for the PC server hardware part.
> Today's 8 CPU Xeon 2.4 Ghz Servers are more than powerful enough to support
> most database needs. Additionally, the high end 32 CPU Xeon 2.4 Ghz Servers
> surpasse the hardware performance of any Unix Servers, including the ones from
> Sun.

I beg to disagree with you.  CPU speed is only part of the equation.
Sure, 2.4Ghz servers are fast.  But PC's still suffer in the I/O
performance area.  Mainframes perform several times faster in this
area.  Even mid-range machines such as the RS/6000 can outperform a PC.
And that's including things like wide SCSI, DMA and the like.

But even in CPU performance Wintel suffers.  If what yuo say is correct,
why are the fastest machines in the world not built on parallel Xeon
processors?  Rather, they are using paralle RS/6000 processors and the
like.

There's a lot more to performance than raw CPU speed!

Quote:> Furthermore, the IBM/Sun microprocessors have not kept up with the Moore's law,
> while Intel has (thanks to their economy of scale). The logical conclusion is
> that Intel's Xeon Processors will someday surpass the best Processors from
> IBM/Sun. As for the 64bit processing, Intel is coming out with new set of 64bit
> processors.

No, they haven't.  But they were so far ahead in the past they can't.
It's much easier to doulbe performance every 18 months when you're on
the bottom end.  It's much harder for the high end machines.

Quote:> Thanks
> Jinsoo
> MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD

--
====================================
To reply, delete the 'x' from my email

Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

====================================

Quote:>I beg to disagree with you.  CPU speed is only part of the equation.
>Sure, 2.4Ghz servers are fast.  But PC's still suffer in the I/O
>performance area.  Mainframes perform several times faster in this
>area.  Even mid-range machines such as the RS/6000 can outperform a PC.
>And that's including things like wide >SCSI, DMA and the like.

Your argument is based primary on the fact that many Sun/IBM Unix servers are
64bit (your I/O argument). Are you aware that the fastest Sun 64bit processor
runs around 466mhz? Can the ability to process twice as many threads (which
64bit does over 32bit) overcome a 500% (466mhz vs 2.4Ghz) difference in CPU
cycles?

I believe 8 CPU Xeon 2.4GHz server can outperform any RS600 currently being
sold. Maybe even 4 CPU can.

Quote:>But even in CPU performance Wintel suffers.  If what yuo say is correct,
>why are the fastest machines in the world not built on parallel Xeon
>processors?  Rather, they are using paralle RS/6000 processors and the
>like.
>No, they haven't.  But they were so far ahead in the past they can't.
>It's much easier to doulbe performance every 18 months when you're on
>the bottom end.  It's much harder for the high end machines.

Gordon Moore (Moore's law) was one of the founders of Intel and Intel (whom I
have worked for by the way) has faithfully doubled the processor speed every 18
months as long as anyone can remember.

The reason why IBM/Sun can't double its clockspeed every 18months is because
they do not have the economy of scale that intel has. Intel can spend billions
more every year in the R&D of their P4 and Xeon (glorified P4) because it is
the primary chip in the desktop PC.

I think it is a matter of time before most servers (including Unix) use Xeon
based chip because of its superior speed/price. The 64bit chip servers will
survive but it may not thrive it did in the past.

Jinsoo
MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

Quote:>Latest news from Gartner Group: IBM Overtakes Oracle in Total
>Database Sales

Question: Has DB2 gain market share because of it technical superiority or
because Oracle rips off its customers?

I think everyone agrees DB2 and MS SQL is gaining momentum and marketshare from
Oracle. But I think most Oracle people will insist it is because of Oracle's
lofty pricing and dubious pricing schemes. In fact, most Oracle DBAs INSIST
Oracle 9i is the most sophisticated RDMBS ever created. And once Oracle stops
sticking it to their customers, it will come roaring back. What do you think?

Jinsoo
MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

Quote:> I appreciate your input and it is a good one. You have given me a fresh
> perspective. What do you think about learning Oracle instead of DB2?

> Jinsoo
> MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

I think you should stick to Xeons and Oracle.

Good luck!

Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

Quote:>>Latest news from Gartner Group: IBM Overtakes Oracle in Total
>>Database Sales

>Question: Has DB2 gain market share because of it technical superiority or
>because Oracle rips off its customers?

>I think everyone agrees DB2 and MS SQL is gaining momentum and marketshare from
>Oracle. But I think most Oracle people will insist it is because of Oracle's
>lofty pricing and dubious pricing schemes. In fact, most Oracle DBAs INSIST
>Oracle 9i is the most sophisticated RDMBS ever created. And once Oracle stops
>sticking it to their customers, it will come roaring back. What do you think?

Oracle may well be the most sophisticated database. It isn't the most
elegant.