MS SQL Server vs. DB2 for UNIX 1

[bzsurf03]

I am hoping to get feedback from multiple people on the differences between IBM's DB2 for UNIX and MS SQL Server and the benefits and weaknesses of both. My company is trying to decide between the two. From what I understand, these two DBMS are in two completely different worlds (UNIX vs. Windows). Shouldn't my company choose a platform first? Am I correct in saying that MS SQL Server cannot run on UNIX (it almost sounds like a dumb question)? I am just really confussed on how my company could have possibly narrowed down to these two products. Beaurocracy, maybe. Thanks for any input.

 

[johnherman]

SQL Server is only on Windows. You can get Sybase ASE for Unix and they are somewhat similar to SQL Server.

I have nothing good to say about DB2 for unix. We had all kinds of problems with version 8.1 ESE. Seems all our other products did not have proper drivers for the database. Cognos, Ascential, Evoke, etc. DB2 for unix is lower on my list than Oracle, Informix (which IBM owns), SQL Server, Sybase, and Ingres (CA).

A key difference; stored procedures for DB2/UX are compiled into C code and are not transportable in case you want to get away from IBM to another RDBMS later on (Oracle, SS). You will need to buy a C compiler if you choose DB2 for unix.

SQL Server is miles ahead as far as database administration. Check out the cost for a DBA for DB2 versus for SQL Server - about half the price. Furthermore, SQL Server come bundled with Replication (extra charge for DB2), OLAP (extra charge for DB2), DTS (Warehouse Manager available at extra charge), and Reporting Services (no equivalent from IBM).

SQL Server is scalable to the low Terabytes. I just finished a gig with a 3 TB SQL Server datamart.

I was on a project at one company where they pulled the plug on DB2 8.1 Unix in favor of SQL Server after wasting several hundred thousand dollars. I am not at liberty to name the company, but I can give you a reference who might.

DB2 for Unix - DON'T



Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.

 

[bzsurf03]

Thanks John for your insight. We are migrating from Informix, which I see from your response are owned by the same company. I don't want to say that as a company we are not happy with Informix because I have little contact with the DB Admin, I just know that it is not working too well with our PeopleSoft system. Thanks again for your insight. I now know how to respond to the question if any higher ups ask my opinion. I still will welcome any other responses.

 

[willir]

bzsurf03

We work in a complex environment - Novell, Unix, NT, 2000, 2003. Oracle, MS*SQL, Sybase, SAP and others.

I also work with some people at two different locations, different businesses.

Although I am not a DBA (just a lowly system admin), I asked the DBA's which they thought was the better product. As johnherman, stated, MS*SQL was the number one pick by all DBA's. All were very decided on which they preferred, and no one started off with ..."hmmm that's hard to say", or "it depends on what you want.

 

[johnherman]

In my opinion, no sense adding the complexity of DB2 to your mix. It's a "different animal" from the rest of the RDBMS's, mostly because of IBM's reluctance to orphan mainframe DB2 from the Unix, NT, and AS/400 versions of DB2. There are many confusing concepts and commands (baggage) which DB2 carries because of IBM's continuing efforts to convince the world that the DB2 Family of Databases is a good enterprise solution.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You cannot take a database backup from mainframe DB2 and restore it to DB2/400 or DB2/Unix. (Oracle can). This is because the IBM Family of DB2 (or DB2 Universal Database, or whatever marketing gimmick they're using now) is a dysfunctional family of separate products which IBM is attempting to unify under a Marketing, not Technical, umbrella.

If you don't have a mainframe, there is absolutely no reason to consider DB2 for Unix. And even if you do have mainframe DB2, I would proceed with extreme caution.

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.

 

[bzsurf03]

Thanks for the replies. You helped bring to point that while I deal with our financial application based on internet architecture, our core apps (sales and billing) I believe are still on a mainframe. This is probably why we are considering DB2. I am going golfing this weekend, with a CIO of a clothing manufacturer. I guess this will have to be a topic of conversation and look forward to discussing. I am interested in learning more, so if anyone else has more to add, please do.

 

[glfntens]

I just wanted to give a view from the "other side of the fence" I happen to be a long time Informix user (15 yrs) and have been extremely pleased with Informix. Even after the acquisition, IBM has continued to improved and enhance the Informix product line. Version 9.4 of the Dynamic Server is the best release yet and it runs on both Unix and Windows. I have friends that run Peoplesoft with IDS 9.4 and they are quite pleased.

As for DB2, I have had the chance to take a look at this database and it sure looks like any other database. Data stored on disk is read into memory which is accessed via SQL. The one thing that DB2 has that nobody has is their optimizer. Wow. I thought Informix's was fantastic, but DB2's optimizer is definitely cutting edge. I guess that is why Peoplesoft, Siebel, and SAP have chosen DB2 as their platform of choice over Oracle. IBM is cross pollenating technology between Informix and DB2. The next release of DB2 is even going to have Informix-style commands to ease migration

The fact that you have legacy mainframe apps still around (and they probably will still be around for awhile) makes DB2 more of a logical consideration because you can share information between the two platforms if you need to.

So, I don't see a problem with DB2 running on Unix. Of course, if you have Informix, why don't you take a look at 9.4.

 

[johnherman]

Just for the record, I have always liked Informix, which is only available on Unix. I have found that Informix has almost always been on the cutting edge of database technology and a strong innovator in the field (contrast with DB2 which has changed little since IBM "invented" the relational database with DB2 decades ago. No doubt in my mind why IBM bought Informix - they need the infusion of technology and innovative thought most desperately.

I stand by my remarks -
DB2 = Don't
But please note that I did not lump Informix with DB2 on my previous comments. Informix has a strong favorable rating in my books.

As far as glfntens remarks, it will be interesting to see if IBM can actually merge the best of the two databases without abandoning its old DB2 constituency in the interest of "backward compatibility".

-------------------------
John Herman is available for short and long term data warehousing consulting and contracts.