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.'"

16 of 38 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.
  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?!?

  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.

  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 PythonOrRuby · · Score: 2

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

  6. 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?
  7. 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.

  8. 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.