If they could improve performance by implementing an Oracle, DB2, or
     other replacement for the current DB, that would make sense, otherwise
     why bother.  The current DB is not all that hard to manage and the
     only problem I see could be corrected with some kind of reorg
     utillity.   Not the current unload, reload thing that takes forever
     but something that would reorg the database in a reasonable amount of
     time while it was online.
     Jim Sporer




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Using db2 or oracle or whatever for the TSM DB
Author:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>  at IPNET
Date:    11/16/99 12:56 PM


Rick, I guess you just have a more active imagination than me! ;-)

I sent a note to someone at Tivoli about this and he replied in part --

    "I agree that we need to look at using an industry
     standard DB for high-end customers.
     Keep pushing for this with other customers.
     Make sure our marketing group understands."

So what does everyone think of this?  Would you want TSM to use
db2/oracle/whatever for the database?  Would it be easier to backup/reorg
tune?  Would you think that your backups are more secure?
Would TSM be a better product?  If performance went down, how much of
a decrease would you accept?

So let's hear it!  Here's your chance for input to a major change in
TSM.


--
--------------------------
--------------------------
Bill Colwell
Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge, Ma.
bcolwell AT draper DOT com
--------------------------
In <199911161303.IAA07261 AT gatekeeper.firstenergycorp DOT com>, on 11/16/99
In <199911161303.IAA07261 AT gatekeeper.firstenergycorp DOT com>, on 11/16/99
   at 08:03 AM, "Richard L. Rhodes" <rhodesr AT FIRSTENERGYCORP DOT COM> said:

>This is an interesting discussion.  Let me give a view from someone
>evaluating ADSM/TSM.

>We don't have DB2. What we do have is an extensive infrastructure
>setup to handle Oracle (backup, recovery, DR, tuning). If ADSM/TSM
>required a full DB2 installation we would have to do the same for it -
> which I personally would be very reluctant to do.  To me, a backup
>system should not require that I become fully competent in a DB that
>we have no other use for (currently - all things change).  There are
>too many other good backup products on the market that don't require
>you to become db administrator for DB2/ORacle/Sybase/etc for
>IBM/Tivoli to make this a requirement.  I believe if IBM/Tivoli did
>this they would limit the market into which ADSM/TSM could be sold.

>So, as far as I'm concerned, I'd want the db to be Oracle or the
>internal db - but not DB2!

>The question IBM/Tivoli continually has to answer is:  what customer
>is ADSM/TSM being targeted at?  If the answer is DB2 shops, then it
>would make sence to use DB2 as the db.  If the answer is broader than
>DB2 shops, then requiring DB2 makes little sense.

>Just some thoughts . . . .

>rick

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard L. Rhodes     e: rhodesr AT firstenergycorp DOT com
>Ohio Edison Co.       p: 330-384-4904
>                      f: 330-384-2514