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

Neil Truby wrote:

> "Tambi Dude" <tambidude@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44d3ea1b$0$17999$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
>
>>and I quote..
>>
>>
>> IDS license revenue grew by double digits in the first half of 2006 "
>
> Hmm. From what is he or she quoting?
>
> It's a shame they won't release this stuff publicly. Does anyone know
> why? Is it for fear of drawing unfavourable (or favourable?) comparisons
> with DB2 on non-mainframe platforms?

Neil, it is a shame that they do absolutely nothing for IDS.
I heard a lot of promises on the InfoBahn and in face to face
meetings regarding marketing in the last months, but I really
can't see any progress today.

This is what frustates you, me and many other loyal Informix
fellows and supporters and IBM is on the best way to loose
those loyal people if they won't prove their promises with
real, serious marketing activity.

I'm tired to hear any lip services, now it's time to fix
those failures, period.

>
> Also, with so little detail available, the rigorous statistician in me
> asks
> "IDS license revenue grew by double digits in the first half of 2006 .."
> COMPARED TO what????!!!!!!!!!

"Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message
news:NW1Bg.7224$A87.4010@fe19.usenetserver.com...
> Tambi Dude wrote:
>> Double Echo wrote:
>>
>>> 3. What is the increase in sales? Who is buying Informix and WHY?
>>
>> One massive O shop has selected Informix for its next generation killer
>> app which needs massive scaling. Good to know that even shops where
>> O is well entrenched know when not to use it :-)
>>
>>
>
> Right. Same story different day. Always a whisper never anything else.

Expect a big press release from IBM any miniute now about this success.

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.

Neil Truby wrote:
> "Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message
> news:NW1Bg.7224$A87.4010@fe19.usenetserver.com...
>> Tambi Dude wrote:
>>> Double Echo wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3. What is the increase in sales? Who is buying Informix and WHY?
>>> One massive O shop has selected Informix for its next generation killer
>>> app which needs massive scaling. Good to know that even shops where
>>> O is well entrenched know when not to use it :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Right. Same story different day. Always a whisper never anything else.
>
> Expect a big press release from IBM any miniute now about this success.
>
>

I expect nothing from IBM for Informix.

Informix is a tinker toy for IBM. They tinker with the technology, and the
customer base, jerk off the developer community and basically plan to do
little if anything with the product beyond the customer base that already
knows what it is. The only benefit to IBM from Informix is how it can be
used to benefit other sectors and products of IBM. IBM knows as long as they
throw little scraps to the shrinking base of loyal users they can leverage it
on the way down. Continuously a lost opportunity with developers. If you
don't have developers you don't have shit. One press release every 3 or 4
years isn't a marketing or advertising campaign. Hiding new sales isn't going
to push product. A tinker toy, that's all Informix is.

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

Could the increase be because of companies like mine that are coming
off of legacy contracts and are now having to pay a price more then
200% what we have paid in the past? Two ways to get to this number;
Increase sales or price...

"IDS license revenue grew by double digits in the first half of 2006"

I still think informix is a great product...

We are still trying to free the application from the database server
here. In time it will happen.

Eric B. Rowell


>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...erman/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 "