Tom, I like the taste of this food for thought!

I have raised this issue with TSM developers at SHARE  and the
short summary of their response is "Cringe".  So I don't
think it will happen anytime soon if and most likely it will
never happen.  I agree with you completely that it would be
a great option for site with large databases.  Plus TSM would
have 2 development teams working on the product - the current one
plus the database developers who are always trying to make Oracle,
DB2 etc. faster.

Bill


At 06:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I wonder, also, if there is still any discussion about supporting
>the use of an alternate RDBMS underneat TSM. It is quite clear
>that there are many more sites with database sizes in the
>25-50GB+ range. Five years ago I felt very lonely with a database
>of this size, but given the discussions on the listserv over the
>past year I feel more comfortable that we are no longer one of
>the only sites supporting TSM instances that large. It has always
>seemed to me that the database functions of TSM have been the
>most problematic (deadlock issues, log full issues, SQL query
>performance problems, complicated and unclear recommendations for
>physical database layout, etc.). All of these problems have been
>solved by Oracle, DB2, and Sybase. Granted there is the issue
>that plugging in an external database adds greatly to the
>complexity of TSM, and reduces it's "black box-ness", but I think
>the resources are available to administer such a beast at
>the large sites that require very large databases.
>
>More food for thought *early* on a Thursday morning.
>
> -- Tom
>
>Thomas A. La Porte
>DreamWorks SKG
>tlaporte AT dreamworks DOT com




----------
Bill Colwell
Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge Ma.