This sure looks like a troll, but IBM folks should go there
and defend DB2

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2708de1c07fd61

"
We're almost ready to give up on DB2 v8 and consider migration to
Oracle (the reason is DB2 v8 being unstable). The main question is -
how good and stable properly configured Oracle is under heavy OLTP load
(10M+ transactions/day)? DB2 v7 handles such loads nicely, but v8 even
w/FP7 is a disaster (instance crashes as well as other errors), and
with supported life of v7 coming to the end, we are pressured to look
for alternatives (with the only real one being Oracle).

So - does anybody has an experience (good or bad) with running heavily
loaded OLTP systems on Oracle?
"

As for those wondering why I am doing this, ask an indian friend of
yours "what is naarad muni".

rkusenet wrote:
> This sure looks like a troll, but IBM folks should go there
> and defend DB2
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2708de1c07fd61
>
> "
> We're almost ready to give up on DB2 v8 and consider migration to
> Oracle (the reason is DB2 v8 being unstable). The main question is -
> how good and stable properly configured Oracle is under heavy OLTP load
> (10M+ transactions/day)? DB2 v7 handles such loads nicely, but v8 even
> w/FP7 is a disaster (instance crashes as well as other errors), and
> with supported life of v7 coming to the end, we are pressured to look
> for alternatives (with the only real one being Oracle).
>
> So - does anybody has an experience (good or bad) with running heavily
> loaded OLTP systems on Oracle?
> "
>
> As for those wondering why I am doing this, ask an indian friend of
> yours "what is naarad muni".
>

Does DB2 need defending?

It doesn't seem appropriate to barge in on an Oracle group to 'defend'
DB2. If this guy has a problem with DB2 he could have turned to this
group. I am curious though to what is causing this behaviour (of DB2
that is ) perhaps bugs in FP<=7 (I understand FP9 is a nescessity
because of major bugs in previous fixpaks).

-R-

-R-

"rkusenet" <usenet.rk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ets7vF4nhjiU1@individual.net...
> "
> We're almost ready to give up on DB2 v8 and consider migration to
> Oracle (the reason is DB2 v8 being unstable). The main question is -
> how good and stable properly configured Oracle is under heavy OLTP load
> (10M+ transactions/day)? DB2 v7 handles such loads nicely, but v8 even
> w/FP7 is a disaster (instance crashes as well as other errors), and
> with supported life of v7 coming to the end, we are pressured to look
> for alternatives (with the only real one being Oracle).
>
FP7 is the first release of 8.2 with many new features. So I would try FP9.

"rkusenet" <usenet.rk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ets7vF4nhjiU1@individual.net...
> This sure looks like a troll, but IBM folks should go there
> and defend DB2
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2708de1c07fd61
>
> "
This person is trying to run 10M+ transactions per day on Windows 2003,
which is not the most stable OS. I would switch to Linux or UNIX, which are
very stable.

Mark A wrote:
> "rkusenet" <usenet.rk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ets7vF4nhjiU1@individual.net...
>
>>This sure looks like a troll, but IBM folks should go there
>>and defend DB2
>>
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2708de1c07fd61
>>
>>"
>
> This person is trying to run 10M+ transactions per day on Windows 2003,
> which is not the most stable OS. I would switch to Linux or UNIX, which are
> very stable.
Which is pretty much the same advise he got from the Oracle folks.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

Perhaps, but OTOH, IBM didn't do much to actually test V8 FP7 before
releasing it on us as a FIX pack (more like a BREAK pack), and it is awfully
unreliable and there were no "do not use" warnings with FP7. FP8 fixes some
bugs, and we already have problems that "are scheduled to be resolved in
FP10". We're on 8.1.5 + private fixes in production.

I do agree that an Oracle forum is not the place to complain about DB2
instability, but I do understand that the OP wants to know if he might be
better off with Oracle under the circumstances - V7 is end of life and the
"current" V8 is too buggy for real use.

"rkusenet" <usenet.rk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ets7vF4nhjiU1@individual.net...
> This sure looks like a troll, but IBM folks should go there
> and defend DB2
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2708de1c07fd61
>
> "
> We're almost ready to give up on DB2 v8 and consider migration to
> Oracle (the reason is DB2 v8 being unstable). The main question is -
> how good and stable properly configured Oracle is under heavy OLTP load
> (10M+ transactions/day)? DB2 v7 handles such loads nicely, but v8 even
> w/FP7 is a disaster (instance crashes as well as other errors), and
> with supported life of v7 coming to the end, we are pressured to look
> for alternatives (with the only real one being Oracle).
>
> So - does anybody has an experience (good or bad) with running heavily
> loaded OLTP systems on Oracle?
> "
>
> As for those wondering why I am doing this, ask an indian friend of
> yours "what is naarad muni".
>

I should say so - 8 very unstable! Linux or win - no difference. Traps
is regular on all fixes. Before fixpack 9 we need restart productive
server every 3 days by memory leaks :-(. Now, I see, it's fixed - first
good news after ten months.

Many years ago when I migrated from sybase/mssql/oracle db2 was really
faster and stable (5.2, not 5.0). I compare with sybase and ms. Today
I don't known about another software but I see very poor quality for
db2. After 5.2 first stable version - 7.2. After 7.2 - first version 8
for me 8.2. fixpack 7 with regularly server restarts аnd nice "gluks"
like

select 'gluk',CHAR('') AS gluk from sysibm.sysdummy1
0 rows selected in 0.01 secs.

O. Yo! It's fixed by ibm without open pmr... Fantastic! It can be not
so complex for such company as ibm to register bugs directly from this
conf which, by the way, is specified on a site as the basic?

I am not trying to apologize for DB2 problems, but people have to use some
common sense. PF7 is the first release of 8.2 so you can be expect it to be
about as buggy as 8.1 base code. The decision as to whether FP7 would be
would be 8.2 rather than 9.1 is not solely based on the number of technical
changes to the code, rather it is usually based on marketing decisions (8.2
is free for license holders of 8.1, and 9.1 would cost extra).

Probably a good idea to wait for at least 2 fixpacks after a release level
for critical production work, so that would mean FP9 at a minimum, which is
2 fixpacks after 8.2 base code. Or just stay with FP6b until whenever you
are comfortable moving to 8.2.

I perfectly understand it. But version 8 was for me up to 7 fixpack
absolutely non-operable. Migration on 8 is necessary to us, but a part
of servers will work on 7 fp12 due current problems with 8. Support
servers with different versions is very difficult.
One time customer will simply replace a platform because it was
bothered with problems. Not the fact, that on other platform will be
better, but customer will not return any more.
IMHO,
Andy

>>I perfectly understand it. But version 8 was for me up to 7 fixpack
>>absolutely non-operable. Migration on 8 is necessary to us, but a
part
>>of servers will work on 7 fp12 due current problems with 8.
My 2 cents...

I have to agree with Mark A on this one. We are running a
multi-terabyte data warehouse on 8.1.5 (and have been for quite some
time) with rock-solid stability. We have had VERY few problems and no
major outages (knock wood). We have held off on the move to 8.2 due to
the number of new features and normal caution but are building out a
test server at FP 9 and expect it to be reasonable solid. If not, we'll
wait for FP10.

Would be curious how many open PMRs you have with pre-FP7 issues...

Pete H