Bill,

What I'd like is to have two options:

  1. Use the proprietary ADSM/TSM database.
     Simple to maintain.

  2. Use an SQLxx compliant database.
     Now if I'm a DB2 shop I could use DB2.
     If I prefer Oracle or Sybase, ditto.
     Anything else: not enough market share to drive development.

That's what I'd like.

Steffan
(also DB2 DBA in addition to ADSM/TSM Consultant)

Bill Colwell wrote:
>
> 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