Are people using db2 on Windows?

I wonder how many people are using db2 on Windows?
I know db2 is native to AS400 which has about 800,000 installations.
Thanks!

Here's what the Dow Jones news service said on May 21, 2003:

"Microsoft's SQL Server expanded its lead as the most widely used 
database on Windows machines with 45% of the market, up from 39% last 
year. Oracle had 27% of this market, while IBM had 22%."

The IBM share would be mainly DB2, as Informix had little share on 
Windows before IBM bought them.

I am not sure what you meant by saying that DB2 is native to AS400.

IBM's relational database started on mainframe VSE operating system as the
SQL/DS product in the early 1980's. It was shortly followed by DB2 on MVS
(now called DB2 for OS/390 or z/OS).

The product currently known as DB2 for Linux, Unix, and Windows started as
OS/2 Database Manager about 1989?. It later became DB2/2 (for OS/2) and
DB2/6000 (for AIX). Support for Windows was added in mid 1990's. Support for
Linux was added late 1990's?. Support for OS/2 has been dropped in the
latest release.

The DB2/400 product was always separate from the others, but I believe it
first appeared in early 1990's (I used it briefly in 1993). It is native to
AS400 OS and not a separate product because it was originally was an add-on
layer on top of existing AS400 files systems. That is, the same data could
be accessed via native AS400 files systems or via SQL. DB2/400 (or DB2 for i
series) has little to do with the roots of DB2 or the current product
running on mainframe or Linux/Unix/Windows platforms.

We've been using it productively - for data warehousing, with great
success - for 4 years of pure Windows production. Prior to that it was DB2
on MVS.

> "Microsoft's SQL Server expanded its lead as the most widely used 
 
Thanks for the info.
I never knew db2 is so popular on Windows.

Mark,

how much data do you keep? What storage do you use?

We currently have over 1.7 million time series, and growing.

Hitachi Data Systems, via a fibre-attached SAN switch. Don't know the model
numbers off-hand (I'm a developer, not part of the storage management).
Originally we were using EMC (SCSI-attached), but recently migrated to HDS.
We perform disk replication to the backup DP Centre within the disk
subsystem, to permit a boot from backup hardware in the case of complete
failure of the main DP centre.

 http://www.**--****.com/ 
I am sorry, but this is un{*filter*}erated BS. The AS/400 had an inverted list
file access method, much like VSAM KSDS that existed on mainframe long
before that. It is not relational. There were other inverted list databases
such as ADABAS and M204 that are not relational and existed long before,
even if they had "some basic relational database constructs". Having some
relational concepts is not the same as a relational DBMS. Complete BS.
Complete and total BS.

"Mark A" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:






< snip - save bandwidth >


Mark A ... whoever you are. 

Since you care neither to disclose your company affliliation, or even
your last name, I think most everyone is going to assume you're just a
regular garden variety troll.


-- 
#include  <disclaimer.std>    /* I don't speak for IBM ...           */
                              /* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
                              /* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-)  */
Richard D. Latham    XXXX@XXXXX.COM 

No, I am not a troll. Just don't want any spam email. Whom I work for is
irrelevant, but I can assure you that it is not a competitor of IBM. I am
making no statements about current products, only past history.

Regarding the question at hand, "relational database technology" is not the
same as a full relational DBMS product. In the article by Jeff Jones quoted,
it merely says that technology from the early relational research was used
in the AS/400. It does not say that resulting product was a relational DBMS.

Having used the AS/400 during the time frame in question (early 1980's), I
can assure you that it did not have a relational DBMS until well after DB2
MVS was released. Even in the early years of DB2/400, it was about 4 times
slower than native access to the same files (how many true relational
databases allow users to go around the SQL engine to access the data with
the native file system?), and very few customers used the SQL access method.
Installed base of the DB2/400 product was a totally misleading statistic
since so few people used it.

During the early years of DB2 we fought many battles with other companies
about what constituted a true relational database, since other vendors
slapped some relational technology on their product and called it
relational. Most notable was the IDMS/R extension that was nothing more than
an SQL layer on top of a network database. Several other databases such as
ADABAS and M204 made similar claims about the relational technology (they
were nothing more than inverted list database).

Considering the argument that IBM made against these (non) relational
pretenders, it would be hypocritical (and wrong) to now say that the early
1980's AS/400 had the first IBM relational database. But Jeff Jones didn't
say that anyway in his article.

"Mark A" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:






I probably just got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning ...

I reacted badly to the "Un{*filter*}erated ..." comment. I certainly don't
go back that far ( early 80s ) as far as DB knowledge, but I didn't
see anything that seemed to merit the "un{*filter*}erated" response.

It's certainly possible for honest differences of opinion in re: what
"relational technology" implies. 

BTW, (not that it matters) didn't you really mean S36 / S38 in the
early 80s ? I didn't remember the AS/400 being available until 1987 or
so ... but I have slept since then :-)

Regards

-- 
#include  <disclaimer.std>    /* I don't speak for IBM ...           */
                              /* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
                              /* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-)  */
Richard D. Latham    XXXX@XXXXX.COM 

I did some work on the S/36, then later AS/400. Of course now it is
i/series. I don't remember the date when the names changed. But my primary
work was with other mainframe (MVS, VSE) and distributed platforms (OS/2,
AIX, Windows, and recently Linux).

The quote has no mention of a full relational DBMS product.  I merely 
tried to provide some details about the implementation of relational 
technologies in System/38.  In response to the OP's questions, you
said:
   "I am not sure what you meant by saying that DB2 is native to AS400."
My post intended to clarify that *some* relational support was 
integrated into the product line early on, years before it gained the 
DB2 name.

Unfortunately it was interpreted as a claim of a "full relational DBMS
product".  You may assert that implementing some relational technologies 
is meaningless without a "full relational DBMS product".  I would 
disagree, as would most System/38 and AS/400 customers.




No, you did not.  AS/400 was introduced in 1988.  You may have used 
either System/38 or System/36 in the early 80s.  As I mentioned 
previously, the initial relational capabilities of AS/400 carried 
forward from System/38.

   < snip - save bandwidth >




Nor did I.  You invented it, ostensibly to launch some kind of relational
DBMS purity rant.  Sorry - I'm not biting.  This is off-topic in any event.

The phrase "some relational technologies" is a misleading,  and in this is
case yields an almost meaningless assertion. If one were to take that
seriously, then virtually all databases have some relational technologies in
them.

The amount of relational support provided in the System 38 during the early
1980's was no more than already provided in inverted list databases like
ADABAS, M204, or even VSAM KSDS (one of the native file systems in OS/390).

The other important point is that even when AS/400 did have a relational
product as DB2/400 as part of the operating system, very few of the
installed base actually used SQL access to data because it was so slow
compared to native AS/400 access of the same data. I will have to admit that
I don't much about the performance DB2 for i/series, and hopefully it is
better.

So let's not play the "installed base" game. Oracle has several hundred
installations of its databases installed on OS/390 in the Fortune 500, but
hardly any of them use it after they discovered it does not work very well
(if at all).

BTW, customers really don't like to buy things from vendors who fudge the
truth, no matter how good their products are.