Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Considering DB2 on Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on from the yes-some-people-still-use-db2 dept.

zzen writes "Aparently, IBM is looking for input on the posibility of their DB2 database being ported to Mac OS X. MacObserver writes: 'IBM has posted a survey asking Mac OS X users if they are interested in having DB2 ported to Mac OS X. DB2 is an enterprise level database solution from IBM, and a Mac OS X port from IBM would be a major boost for Mac OS X in the corporate market place.'"

38 comments

  1. Too late? by babbage · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The survey seems to have been pulled:
    Your request cannot be completed. The following error message was returned:

    The survey you requested: "4551/DB2forMacOS.htm" has been deactivated.

    For questions regarding the survey you were attempting to complete, please contact the owner of the survey directly.

    If you feel that you are receiving this message as a result of a system error, please send us an email.

    Anyway, I've never worked with DB2 before so yes I'm talking out of my ass here, but I picture it as a high quality enterprise server database meant to be run on big IBM mainframes, big Sun servers, medium size Dell or HP Linux machines, etc. I also have the impression that Apple's one offering this direction -- Xserve -- is a nice but overpriced & underuseful machine that isn't going to be replacing the competition any time soon. For better or worse, I picture OSX as a client OS, not a server one, though perhaps that will change over time. [NB that I'm typing this from an OSX box.]

    So, all that said, does anyone run DB2 on client workstation hardware? I can maybe picture developers working with an intra-office instance of the server, but really I thought it wanted something more substantial than the average PC or Mac in order to run happily. Am I wrong? Would any of you have a use for client / lightweight DB2?

    --
    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
    1. Re:Too late? by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both you and ZeroLogic are kind of missing the point. Having a copy of DB2 running on your desktop-- or, hell, your laptop-- would be a great thing if you were a DB2 or database application developer. Since OS X is rapidly becoming a platform of choice for Java development, putting the big DBMS's on OS X as well would practically get us to the point where a PowerBook or iBook can be a portable, self-contained J2EE development system.

      Besides, Oracle and Sybase are already available for OS X. Landing DB2 would complete the trifecta.

      I really doubt IBM is thinking about positioning DB2 running on OS X as an enterprise solution.

    2. Re:Too late? by xil · · Score: 4, Informative

      As always with IBM, things aren't as simple as they appear. There are a number of different products which are all called DB2, ranging from small PC-size DBs to stuff that could only work on a mainframe. (For all I know, the big and little DB2s don't even share any code.)

      Several years ago, I ran a DB2 database on a medium-level PC, without problems. I don't see why it would be any more of a problem now.

    3. Re:Too late? by babbage · · Score: 1
      It's a bad habit to feed the trolls, but...
      Xserve's price/performance ratio is pretty good, as is its absolute performance, in my oppinion.
      Well thank you for your opinion, but my company did some comparison shopping & ended up deciding that for the services we'd want to run -- http, smtp, dns, cvs, etc -- we could get Dell or Sun blade machines for significantly less money. Most of us like Macs a lot, but for a server we're not trying to do anything that would run better on an OSX server than it would on some flavor of Linux or Solaris, so we just haven't been able to justify the expense to the finance people.

      This is not just from looking at screen shots. It's from comparing the specs of the Xserve and similarly powered &/or priced alternatives, and it seems like consistently you can either get the same amount of power for less money or you can get a more powerful machine for the same money, your pick. The Xserve might be sexier than the alternatives but then hey who are you trying to impress, other sysadmins? It's not like your SO is likely to care... :-)

      It's not so much a matter of trusting Linux "more" than BSD to serve a database -- I'm pretty much agnostic there. The bigger question is whether there is a lightweight version of the software that would run happily on non server level machines. I'd have no problem running something on the scale of MySQL, PostgreSQL, FileMaker, or Access on something as powerful as the average Mac or Intel desktop machine; I would be more reluctant to run something on the magnitide of Oracle on the same hardware, and my impression, just to get back to the original point, was that DB2 is similarly heavyweight software. I'd be happy to be corrected/enlightened here.

      --
      DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
    4. Re:Too late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I also have the impression that Apple's one offering this direction -- Xserve -- is a nice but overpriced & underuseful machine that isn't going to be replacing the competition any time soon."

      Apple's server is the cheapest 1U server available. It's roughly the same price as a Dell PowerEdge 1650 1U server with Red Hat Linux with minimal hard drives options, cheaper by about $1000 with full drive options & several thousand cheaper than the same hardware with Windows 2000 Server.

      With full file-serving to Windows (Samba), Mac, & Unix (NFS) clients, plus built-in Apache, CUPS print server & the ability to run most any J2SE server applets, it's a bargain.

    5. Re:Too late? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it depends on how you define "magnitude." The system requirements for running Oracle (depending on how you define "Oracle" ;) aren't much different from those for running PostgreSQL + assorted administration apps, f'rinstance -- and for that matter, FileMaker Server is a godawful resource hog that actually takes up more CPU and RAM than many "enterprise-level" DBMS's, in terms of what it takes to get the app itself up and running. So the real question is not the size of the app, but the size of the data. Run Oracle or DB2 on your iBook? Sure. Run a multi-terabyte database system from your iBook, probably not ... My gut feeling is that a properly configured XServe cluster can probably handle it, but the fact is it's too new a setup to be sure.

      All that being said, while I doubt Hertz or Kaiser is going to be replacing their data warehouse infrastructure with XServes any time soon, I can see an Oracle- or DB2-on-XServe solution being very good for a lot of medium-sized businesses. The hardware can handle the apps, and plenty of data, just fine.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Too late? by drsmithy · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Apple's server is the cheapest 1U server available.

      Rubbish. A PowerEdge 350 is less than half the price (~US$1300ish) of the basic Xserve ($US3000) even after bumping its options to within the same ballpark (1GHz processor, 80GH HDD, 256MB RAM, GB copper ethernet). They start at $850, or less than a third of the price of an Xserve. Not to mention they have a better warranty (1 year onsite parts/labour + 2 years parts vs 1 year parts)

      It's roughly the same price as a Dell PowerEdge 1650 1U server with Red Hat Linux with minimal hard drives options, cheaper by about $1000 with full drive options & several thousand cheaper than the same hardware with Windows 2000 Server.

      Your maths is quite strange. A base single 1.4GHz 1650 with 256MB RAM and a 73GB 10k RPM SCSI drive still only comes in around the $2000 mark ($1000 cheaper than the equivalent Xserve). And that's with dual 1GB/sec copper ethernet, two 64bit/66Mhz PCI slots free, a faster disk and a better warranty. Max out the 1650 to dual 1.4GHz CPUs, 3x73GB disk and 2G of RAM and it only comes to around $5600, nearly $2000 cheaper than the equivalent Xserve - with the same advantages wrt to network, slots and disk (albeit with only about half the disk space).
      And don't forget these machines are at the bottom end of the server market. If you want more oomph Dell have a whole slew of machines you can move up to. Apple have nothing.

      With full file-serving to Windows (Samba), Mac, & Unix (NFS) clients, plus built-in Apache, CUPS print server & the ability to run most any J2SE server applets, it's a bargain.

      It's not a bargain. It might be interesting to parties who don't want to employ a Unix admin to look after their workgroup server, but for more mainstream usage, where a real admin will be running the box and the software niceties of OS X are, at best, of little importance, it's a damn expensive piece of hardware.

    7. Re:Too late? by wchin · · Score: 1
      A PowerEdge 350 is less than half the price (~US$1300ish) of the basic Xserve ($US3000) even after bumping its options to within the same ballpark (1GHz processor, 80GH HDD, 256MB RAM, GB copper ethernet).

      Ah... wrong.

      The PowerEdge 350 can only take 1gb worth of PC100 RAM (vs. 2gb of DDR on the Xserve), can take only 2 drives (vs. 4 in the Xserve), has no built in firewire, has only 10/100 NICs and one free 32 bit 33Mhz expansion slot (adding a gigabit NIC takes up that slot). The Xserve has dual gigabit NICs and still has a 64 bit 66Mhz slot free. Finally, the 1Ghz G4 with 2gb of L3 cache is much faster than a 1Ghz PIII on most tasks - and really blows it away with Altivec/Velocity Engine aware code. Depending on exactly what you choose (since the two can't be matched exactly), the PowerEdge 350 might be slightly cheaper running RedHat Linux, but would be more expensive running W2k.

      The PowerEdge 1650 is closer, but again it mostly comes down to RedHat Linux vs. W2k on the price.

      And don't forget these machines are at the bottom end of the server market. If you want more oomph Dell have a whole slew of machines you can move up to. Apple have nothing.

      Yes, it would be nice to have a smoother transition to something bigger - switching to another platform with different tools can be a pain.

      It's not a bargain. It might be interesting to parties who don't want to employ a Unix admin to look after their workgroup server, but for more mainstream usage, where a real admin will be running the box and the software niceties of OS X are, at best, of little importance, it's a damn expensive piece of hardware.

      I respectfully disagree. Even the most advanced, most professional system administrators can benefit from the time savings from the various tools in Mac OS X Server. But it's not for everyone, and not for every case. It is a good value for many situations and is definitely better than the low end Sun and IBM stuff. It is very competitive against the x86 stuff even running Linux (especially against a commercial server version of Linux).

    8. Re:Too late? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Ah... wrong. [...]

      I was comparing the 350 to the bottom end Xserve and primarily in response to the claim that the Xserve was the cheapest 1U machine available. An Xserve, particularly one customised a bit, is always going to blow away a lowly PE350. Then again, for twice the $$$, you'd bloody well hope so.

      The PowerEdge 1650 is closer, but again it mostly comes down to RedHat Linux vs. W2k on the price.

      A (more than) comparable 1650 - which has some distinct advantages I noted in my original post, certainly enough to make me consider it easily a superior machine, is about $2000 cheaper. That is not chicken feed in this market. And whilst $2000 won't buy you unlimited seats on a Win2k server, it will leave you a bit of spare cash if you use a free OS.
      Think about how many of these machines might be going to places where there are already established sysadmins, and all those $2000s start to add up.

      [...] It is very competitive against the x86 stuff even running Linux (especially against a commercial server version of Linux).

      Like I said, you people have strange maths. The 1650 is far and away a cheaper deal running a free OS, which is not an unlikely situation in a significant proportion of sites.
      Similarly, as I said, I can see how the Xserve *is* a competitive deal for somewhere that doesn't employ [a] full time sysadmin(s), but for places that do, that $2000 per machine mounts a powerful argument against them.
      I've tried to get us an Xserve, I really have, but I just can't slip the $2000ish (AU, in this case) price difference past management, because I can't justify it. Particularly when the Dell is a faster, more capable machine in nearly every way.

  2. Are XServe's quite there? by ZeroLogic · · Score: 3

    I mean, I know that Apple's entered the server market, but do they really have the kind of hardware people run DB2 on? I don't normally consider an Apple as a high end server, and if you're going to do low end database work then what do you need DB2 for?

    1. Re:Are XServe's quite there? by kwerle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hum. I wonder what you think "high end" is?
      From store.apple.com:
      ---
      Dual 1 GHz PowerPC G4
      256K L2 cache & 2MB L3 cache
      per processor
      2.0GB DDR SDRAM @ 266MHz
      4x120GB Apple Drive Modules
      CD-ROM drive
      ATI Graphics Card
      Dual Gigabit Ethernet
      Two USB ports
      Three FireWire ports
      ---
      OK, there's bigger hardware out there, but I'm thinking that 2G RAM and nearly .5TB disk is big enough to do an awful lot of work. This is well above IBM's own pSeries bottom end, though it obviously is nowhere near the top. The bottom line is, unless you've got HUGE amounts of data, it seems reasonable that you could go with Apple and DB2.

      Yes, HUGE is a relative term, but how many businesses fit into the "it's enough for us" category. Hell, if they're selling it on Linux PC's, why not Apple, too?!?

    2. Re:Are XServe's quite there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of businesses that run their day-to-day operations on machines with less horsepower than an Xserve. I deal with them everyday. That said, they're not running Oracle, but they are running other flat-file databases and most are running post-relational, aka pick-style, aka multidimensional, aka multivalue databases. And about 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 of the last group are using either of IBM's U2 (Universe or Unidata) databases.

    3. Re:Are XServe's quite there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell would throw IDE drives on a server.... much less a database server... you clowns talk out of your ass

  3. The real question is this. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Does IBM want Oracle to be the only Enterprise Database Server product for OS X Server?

    My guess would be no but then again who cares. I'll use Oracle either way.

    1. Re:The real question is this. by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does IBM want Oracle to be the only Enterprise Database Server product for OS X Server?

      Given that Sybase has been available for OS X for several weeks now, I'd say the answer is no. Or maybe yes. Ummm. What was the question?

    2. Re:The real question is this. by jimmu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, keep in mind that SAPDB is available under the GPL, and runs under linux. Its only a matter of time until someone puts in the work to make it run on OS X.

      --

      ----
      One of us needs to stick ones' head in a bucket of ice water.
      - Hobbes
  4. Bring it on! by dhardman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd love to see as many "enterprise level" MacOS X apps as we can get. We can always use MacSQL of 4D or FileMaker, but to have another app that isn't shunned by corporate america is refreshing.

    1. Re:Bring it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      silly (but honest) question time... :)

      What does "enterprise level" mean? I'm not too clued up on the terminology, and hear the term thrown about from time to time - is that the highest of the highest-end gear/apps?

    2. Re:Bring it on! by phillyclaude · · Score: 1

      Enterprise-level means that is is the type of software that you would stake your large company's crucial data on. Merck, GM, Blue Cross....that type of company would use it.

      --
      A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
  5. IBM getting MS back by Zelet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I worked at IBM there was a sincere hatred for everthing Microsoft (in my dept, in my building, in my town - I can't talk for all of IBM). What I think IBM is doing is kicking the sand in Microsofts face. They are pushing every platform but MS.

    IBM fully supports Linux and now they are startin on OSX, I think they really want to get rid of MS. Maybe it is just me:P

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
    1. Re:IBM getting MS back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems likely. It also looks as though Apple and IBM are getting closer in any event as the supplier of their CPU's.

    2. Re:IBM getting MS back by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 2

      Having another revenue stream - even a small one - never hurts, either.

    3. Re:IBM getting MS back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DB/2 has run on WinXX kernels for a long time you fucking retard

  6. WebObjects Adaptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A WebObjects (Apples Java Application Server) Adaptor (WebObjects JDBC PlugIn) for DB2 would be a nice start. Such adaptors are needed for some taks that are different accross RDBMS like reverse engeneering a database with the modeler or primary key generation...

  7. Apple and IBM hardware ties? by ilovehippies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    maybe IBM is interested in os X because they know soon Apple will be using 64 bit IBM produced chips? I dont think they would bother ported it over now, and apple hardware CURRENTLY isn't the best solution for their software, but maybe they know something we dont about what chips apple is going to use in the next round of powermacs or xserves

    --
    and yes i am pulling this out of my ass, but hey its the internet so who cares?
  8. Re:Apple back end by Hi+Larry! · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What a stupid and childish comment.

  9. Re:Apple back end by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Informative

    What a stupid and childish comment.

    Heh, I'll take it you are new to our little ghetto known as the Apple stories that don't go front page. It's like the "BSD is dying" troll in the BSD section; a thread wouldn't be complete without it.

  10. No thanks by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    Keep your DB2. But I'll take OS X on one of your super duper CPUs.

  11. I can think of a use by jbolden · · Score: 2

    IMHO Xserver is a great system for small business that needs servers but doesn't have any real IS staff; giving them fairly high ease of administration. I imagine lots of medium sized business apps make use of DB2 for historical reasons. I can see some synergy here allowing small business that want to step up to more powerful apps without stepping up to hardcore servers. I don't know if it is enough to justify the cost of the port however.

    My personal hope would be the DB2 devleopment tools are made cheaply / freely available for OSX creating a sort of "access+sql server" combo much less expensive then 4D.

  12. Re:Apple back end by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

    It was almost funny the first time someone said that. Honestly, come up with something useful or go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself

    --
    Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
  13. Port uniVerse or Unidata (Was:I can think of a use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    IMHO Xserver is a great system for small business that needs servers but doesn't have any real IS staff;

    This is exactly why IBM should port either of the U2 (uniVerse preferred) databases instead of DB2. There are many advantages, but the primary one is that all multi-value databases are a better fit for the typical Xserve user than a monolithix flat-file database like Oracle, Sybase, DB2, SQLServer, etc. (and even to a degree the "free" SQL databases). These databases all take more effort and manpower to develop in and maintain.

    Also, there are a tremendous number of similarities between the two camps. Both Mac & mvDBMS users are ...
    • ... in the minority, but know they've chosen the superior platform.
    • ... well aware that they can get more done, in less time with less frustration and effort.
    • ... using a system that is labeled "out of date" but the "Big Guys" are still trying to add new features that have been available for years.
    • ... sticking with their chosen platform because they'd rather get work done with their system instead of work on their system.
    • ... able to support a much larger organization with a much smaller staff.
    • ... using machines to get real day-to-day work completed that the other guys would have had to get rid of because they were too old and slow.
    • ... aware that their TCO and support costs would increase terribly if they had to switch to one of the more popular platforms.
    • ... used to seeing the vast majority of switchers wonder how they ever got by with their old platform.
    and so on, and so on. Almost every Mac vs. Windows issue has a mvDBMS vs. SQL counterpart (and visa-versa).

    So, check out some info about uniVerse:
    http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/u2/universe/
    and see what we've been missing. Then email the U2 folks at IBM:
    mailto:u2askus@us.ibm.com
    and let them know that you'd rather see either of the U2 databases (preferably uniVerse) ported instead of DB2.
  14. uniVerse or Unidata by ed+'g3' · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is all true. But I'd rather see unidata over universe, as that's what I use in my day job. Although I hear good things about universe.

    One other possibility is jBase, they have a free linux version kicking about somewhere...

    1. Re:uniVerse or Unidata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you want to download a developer's release of jBase, you can get download it from the jBase website. While you're there, ask them to consider a port to Mac OS X.

      Having dealt with pretty much every MVDBMS out there (except Revalation), my overall preference would be jBase:
      • Compiles directly OS executables -- much faster.
      • Easily connects to other databases
      • Has compatibility setting to nearly match all the other flavors
      I thought that they would be the most likely to actively consider a port, but when I asked, I received a generic, "There is insufficient demand at this time." answer. Maybe if more people asked, they might see more of a reason to consider a port.

      The simple fact that OS X is on IBM's radar, is great, but given that we'll likely see only one of their four (uniVerse, UniData, DB2 and Informix) DBMS's make it, I'd prefer uniVerse because it has similar compatibility options to jBase, has the least bad SQL (SQL is bad period) support outside of jEDI and seems to be a little more actively developed than UniData. Also, UniData can bug me because it's not quite uniVerse and not quite Pick.

      That said, as long as one of the U2 databases made it, I'd be happy. Now, if ED would pull-up TextEdit (or BBEdit), then I'd be totally happy to switch to UniData.