Hello Kelly,

you also have my sympathy, as the actual adsm DB!

Regards,

Rene Lambelet
Nestec SA - 55, Av. Nestle - CH-1800 Vevey
Tel: ++41'21'924'35'43 / Fax: ++41'21'924'45'89
E-Mail: rene.lambelet AT nestle DOT com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly J. Lipp [SMTP:lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 10:21 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: Using db2 or oracle or whatever for the TSM DB
>
> I'm in violent sympathy with Wanda's position.  It is not broken, why
> break
> it!
>
> A general purpose database will not be optimized for this environment.  I
> can't imagine that an Oracle could be made to work better than what we
> have
> today.  Can what we have today be made to work better?  Perhaps, but I
> doubt
> that many of us on this side of the fence can say that with any certainty.
>
> Why does anyone think we need to change databases?  Size, performance,
> maintainability? What is it?  How many of us really want to administer
> another db?
>
> Kelly J. Lipp
> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
> PO Box 51313
> Colorado Springs CO 80949
> 719-531-5926
> www.storsol.com
> lipp AT storsol DOT com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
> Prather, Wanda
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 12:13 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Using db2 or oracle or whatever for the TSM DB
>
>
> Yikes!  NO WAY do I want ADSM based on another vendor's data base.
>
> Has nothing to do with performance - has to do with the fact the the DB
> operation is CRITICAL to keeping ADSM alive and well, and the LAST thing
> we
> need is to have to involve another vendor to get response to DB issues.
> How
> would that be a good thing, or make *SM a better product?
>
> And in my past experience with another IBM product that used DB/2 as it's
> data base underneath, involving DB2 creates just as big a support problem
> as
> if it were a totally unrelated vendor.  I NEVER want to hear "we can't fix
> that until DB2 fixes their problem..... ", or the like, EVER again.
>
> And besides that, I LIKE the fact that I don't have to learn DB2 or Oracle
> to make ADSM work.
>
> If it ain't broke, don't create ways to break it.....
>
> ************************************************************************
> Wanda Prather
> The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
> 443-778-8769
> wanda_prather AT jhuapl DOT edu
>
> "Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think" -
> Scott Adams/Dilbert
> ************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Colwell [SMTP:bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 12:57 PM
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject:      Using db2 or oracle or whatever for the TSM DB
> >
> > 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
> > C. S. Draper Lab
> > Cambridge, Ma.
> > bcolwell AT draper DOT com
> > --------------------------
> >
> >
> > 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