IBM Sets DB2 Database Free (Beer)

Anonymous Coward writes to tell us that in the hopes of winning more developer interest, IBM has released a free version of their DB2 database. From the article: "DB Express-C is the same database as IBM's commercial offerings but the company places limits on what kind of hardware it can run on. It can be deployed on systems with two processor cores or up to two dual-core chips on Advanced Micro Devices- or Intel-based servers. The memory limit is 4GB but there are no limits on the size of database or number of users. "

Comments

Question for/from the Inept

[eldavojohn]

*puts on his ragged and unused database admin hat*

*paints two large concentric circles on his chest, one inside the other*

*throws off his gloves ... and steps into the circle of death that is known as a Slashdot forum*

Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser. All those details aside, why should I switch to either Microsoft's SQL Server 2005, Oracle 10g or DB2?

I'm a huge MYSQL fan ... well, because I've enjoyed their stuff freely for quite some time. Suddenly, everyone (and their dog) is releasing their once-thousand-dollar database in a free and slightly inhibited form.

Why the hell should I even bother thinking about switching to these new databases? And, further more, it seems that most of these newly free databases are not intended for corporate use ... like DB2's memory limit and the castrations of the other databases ... so where do they belong? In the hands of small businesses? A company's "developer camp?"

And could you be so kind as to make the prior assumption that I know I'm an idiot so you don't need to tell me that. Just give me some nice hard facts that are easy to measurably prove one database has an advantage over another.

By the way, thanks ScuttleMonkey for clarifying that it's "free as in beer." Unfortunately it's only noon and now you've awakened my desire to get slammed over lunch.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[jzeejunk]

Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser.

You are underestimating the slashdot crowd. Try posting a link to your website here.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I'm glad you're happy with MySQL for your personal web site. But what does that have to do with DB2? IBM is trying to attract developers, not small web site webmasters.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[GWSuperfan]

I'm not sure I'd bother switching. MySQL 5 supports all sorts of cool features. Combine that with the fact that you already know the product and the decision as to whether or not to switch should be a no-brainer. Unless, of course, you need some feature that isn't in MySQL- but I haven't run into that particular problem yet.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[AKAImBatman]

Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser. All those details aside, why should I switch to either Microsoft's SQL Server 2005, Oracle 10g or DB2?

You shouldn't. In fact, it's mildly surprising you're even bothering with a database.

You should download the big databases if you fit in any of the following categories:

1) You need to develop against or evalute the database.
2) You need to learn the database to increase your marketable skills.
3) You happen to run a high-traffic site and you need features not found in PostgreSQL.
4) You run a site that you expect to grow in traffic and want the option of upgrading to a more powerful version of the software at a later date.

I'm sure that others can find one or two more cases under which these DBs would be useful.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[eldavojohn]

You are underestimating the slashdot crowd. Try posting a link to your website here.

Yes, everyone's intent will be to view my vacation pictures.

Wait a minute ... why is my internet slowing down ... and what's a "port scanner." Well, if Window's firewall is asking me to allow it to come through on port 445, it must be ok.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[morgan_greywolf]

Two words: Software validation. Database licenses are very, very expensive. You have an app that you've already developed against, say, Oracle or DB2, and you want to to run some test scenarios from a functionality standpoint. You could spend thousands on the software, or you could just keep your testing scenarios within the limits of the free beer version and not have to worry about software licenses. Later, you will probably need to prove out your software from a scalability perspetive and you'll need the real software then, but you don't need to be paying for the license during your year-long release cycle.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[drinkypoo]

DB2 is arguably the most scalable RDBMS out there. It was some time ago but when I worked for Tivoli we kicked out some benchmarks and the story was basically that SQL Server (basically Sybase 10 back then) was fastest but least scalable, oracle was slower but much more scalable, and DB2 was slowest but by far most scalable, basically never slowing down any measurable amount no matter how much data you stuffed into it.

Whether this is the current state of affairs, I can't say.

Personally I'm a postgres fan but I'm using mysql for fiddling around with drupal because the mysql support is exceptionally poor. Most all the modules have schema information only for mysql, and sure you can translate it over, but some things won't work quite reliably in all cases. So the answer, as usual, is that you should run the platform supported by your applications.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[iabervon]

The big databases seem to do better with tons of reads and writes. They also tend to have extensions that let you do things to make certain types of complicated queries a lot faster (such as "for each month, give me the number of rows with a date column in that month and the total of the value column, also the total number of rows, and the total of the value column. But only include rows where the owner column is this value.")

The reason that they're releasing free versions is for developers whose software is used by big companies. If you were working on software for some big company and the database companies didn't offer free versions, you couldn't provide a solution using an expensive database, because you wouldn't be able to test it without paying a lot of money that you won't want to. Then the big company doesn't have a reason to buy the expensive database, because their applications aren't tested with it and probably won't run any faster. When I was working for a company that made a web application intended to be deployed internally by big companies, we used half a dozen free copies of Oracle, and probably wouldn't have used Oracle if these hadn't been available. Of course, these free copies of Oracle were running on workstations and only dealing with example data, not real customer data, so, from Oracle's point of view, the weren't actually doing any database work.

Re:Question for/from the Inept

[GooberToo]

I'm glad you brought up performance versus scalability. PostgreSQL is often considered slow by MySQL fans who fail to understand the concept of scalability. Simply stated, MySQL is typically faster than PostgreSQL with low scalability requirements yet PostgreSQL tends to scale much, much better than does MySQL for both complex queries and highly concurrent, mixed operation loads. Obviously, this is a rule of thumb and not a hard/fast rule. I'm sure there are corner cases (which is often put forward in MySQL benchmarks, which are not reflective of real world applications) in each camp which ignore the rule.

For people that do not understand scalability versus performance, let's put it like this:
MySQL is fast for one user and PostgreSQL, while fast for one user, tends to be slightly slower than MySQL. On the other hand, add a hundred concurrent, mixed operation (aka, not read only) users and MySQL tends to go belly up. At the same time, given the same example, PostgreSQL is happily chugging along; albiet at increased latencies. Of course, this statement is broad and makes many assumptions, but it will hopefully help others understand the concept.

So, given your rankings above, PostgreSQL, tends to find a middle ground between Oracle's performance/scalability ranking. In other words, PostgreSQL tends to scale less than Oracle yet tends to perform better. MySQL, on the other hand, performs fairly fast for read-only databases but scales very poorly.

I'm confused

[AKAImBatman]

How does this differ from the "Free" version they used to give away? I think I still have the install files sitting around somewhere for the 7.1 UDB install that I got off IBM's website. Did they stop offering a free version for awhile, then restart, or is this licensed a bit differently?

Re:I'm confused

[Fire Dragon]

How does this differ from the "Free" version they used to give away?

The "Free" version that they used to give away was for development use. You couldn't use that version on your production system. At least thats how I remember it. I was playing around with it and decided not to install it because of that limitation.

With this new version, it can be used on small production enviroments also. This makes it a lot appealing because of the starting costs of development and moving to production.

self taught learning?

[way2trivial]

want a job? job requires knowledge of a specific app? Ka-Ching....

features

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

does mysql do this:

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/ techarticle/dm-0511singh/

Re:features

[zippthorne]

Your article uses the word, "leverage." Furthermore, it uses it as a verb. Stop weirding language.

Re:features

[zardo]

Here are the major differences between commercial databases I've used, all offer a free "express" edition:

Sybase Cheaper version of Oracle, much of the same underlying code, optimised for speed although maybe not quite as fast as Oracle. Missing some features like GIS datatypes. Annoying limitations like a 30 character name limit and no full outer joins (only the union trick). Recently integrated with the java virtual machine to do java stored procedures, good for java development. Popular with financial transaction companies, probably due to stable codebase (not a lot changes). MS SQL Microsoft buys Sybase codebase, which is decent, and build into it a lot of developer studio tools and integration, no Java. Oracle Much the same as Sybase, grew out of the same early-era databases, with more features/options (like GIS datatypes) and arguably, it's faster too. Also the most expensive. Popular with Java applications, java integration just like Sybase. Same annoying limitations like 30 character limit on names and no full outer joins. DB2 Move forward with new features unlike Oracle and Sybase, noticably different feel than the classic databases. Java integration also. None of the annoying limitations mentioned earlier. MySQL Lots of advanced features added in newer versions, such as GIS datatypes (by programmers for programmers, as they say). Fast, low memory footprint, free. Widespread support. Biggest setbacks are the lousy query optimizer and other fundamental aspects of the core which may come back to bite you, although I hear it has a well organized design that aids in development of new features. PGSQL Great database, been around long time, used to be slow but now is faster with more popularity due to mysql success. Free and all that. Biggest limitation in my limited experience is the lack of any replication features built in.

I know I may have missed some major issues that I'm not aware of, so feel free to add to this.

Free (Beer)

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the software. Where do I get the free beer?

developers,developers,developers

[free space]

The thing is, most developers use the dev tool/database they 'play with'.
So all companies are releasing a "playful developer edition" of their tools, so that developers learn their stuff, play with it,and when they do a serious project, they will ask their boss to buy tool X because it's what they know.

To directly answer your question: you don't have a reason to replace MySql on your site where you post mexico photos. But IBM wants other people to use DB/2 on their personal sites/apps so that they get the habit of using it elsewhere.

Scalable Software

[RevMike]

Why the hell should I even bother thinking about switching to these new databases? And, further more, it seems that most of these newly free databases are not intended for corporate use ... like DB2's memory limit and the castrations of the other databases ... so where do they belong? In the hands of small businesses? A company's "developer camp?"

First of all, the commercial database offerings are far more feature rich than MySQL, though MySQL is getting better all the time. MySQL is fabulous for the hobbyist and small business crowd, but won't be found as a core technology of a major investment bank or backing an SAP installation at a large manufacturer anytime soon.

So the benefit of these free commercial products is that developers can build systems based on these technologies, then scale them easily to both small businesses and large enterprises. No one will start running their self-hosted blog on DB2, but it is easy to build a software product which may target businesses of several different sizes, and using a consistent database engine for small business and large enterprises is useful.

A little too late?

[beacher]

Just some thoughts and possible misconceptions - I haven't used DB2 at all, but I am a heavy Oracle and occasional mysql DBA/user. I just went to IBM's DB2 page and was not very shocked to see their migration page

"Migrate Now! for DB2 Universal Database (UDB) facilitates the migration from Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft SQL server, and additional database platforms to DB2 UDB at a special price. Migrate Now! is an end-to-end offering that includes migration tool kits, no-charge online education, sales teams and resources to assist you in planning and implementing your migration based on IBM's proven methodology."

I think it falls directly in step with IBM's shift in strategy - lower the software cost and generate service based revenues. I don't think I'll be moving my stuff over anytime soon. Oracle on the data warehouse (the app was built before mysql could do cross table updates), mysql on the select only local repository.
IBM may be too late for the vast majority of developers. The ones that offered their products to develop and learn on are the ones that will find some sort of loyalty.

'DB Express-C' available on multiple platforms

[sczimme]

A quick search of IBM's site reveals the links to download DB Express-C. (Registration is required.)

Since no one /. ever, ever, ever runs Windows, here is the link to the X86 Linux, 2.6 kernel version. :-)

Re:So ... why would I move from PostgreSQL to DB2?

[AKAImBatman]

Besides the obvious "cost" reasons, what would DB2 give me that PostgreSQL doesn't?

Plenty of headaches? Bragging rights? Optional corporate (un)support? Good karma? Ability to "fight the man" by "being the man"? (You 'da man?)

See? Lots of reasons! :-P

MOD PARENT REDUNDANT

[everphilski]

concentric circles on his chest, one inside the other

Re:Toes, now feet in the water

[bigman2003]

Ummm...I guess you don't keep up on tech news much.

IBM no longer produces the Thinkpad, Lenovo does.

Re:So ... why would I move from PostgreSQL to DB2?

[DARKFORCE123]

DB2 main attractiveness for being free is its feature set. PostgreSQL already has a well developed feature set for a 'free' offering so you may not get as much from it unlike if you migrated from MySQL. No offense to MySQL, but for now its claim to greatness is being 'free' and speed, not having a fully developed feature set.

Bottom line is that this free DB2 should be considered an evaulation kit for a larger deployment more than anything else since its way more than you need for a small system.

Communism!

[Uukrul]

Ballmer: And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it's free.

I'm sure Sam Palmisano has one of this posters in his office.

Re:No, mysql does not jail you with proprietarisms

[RetroGeek]

proprietary extensions

select * from mytable limit 4,10

So what?

[Qbertino]

I don't want a free database. There are more full-range free databases out there than free full-range editors.

I want a free database + free zero hassle one stop installation + free zero database driver suckage + free native object-relational OSS PL support (and I mean Python and Ruby and PHP and Perl, all at the same time) + free full range plattform independent grafical admining + SQL errors that don't say "syntax error between line 3 and 10000" + a free full-range professional level grafical ER tool with reverse engineering of any DB I have to migrate to the DB they offer + free optional zero fuss, 3 config lines maximum load balancing.

Call me when you offer that and I'll be using DB2, Oracle or whatever within an instant.

Until then I'll stick to my current MySQL InnoDB stunts and my plans to migrate to Postgres or - as the case might be - Firebird. They are truly free and they got my attention. And if MySQL Workbench will be as cool as it looks I might even just not switch at all. Despite the fact that current MySQL still has way to go before becoming a full range database. MaxDB might change that - but we'll see.

Sorry folks but getting attention requires a tad more than just giving your DB away for free these days. And it's all your fault. Hadn't you asked such bizar prices in the first place things probably would look different today.

Scalability and windows commentary

[finnif]

DB2's XML functionality looks awesome, I'm definitely going to try this out.

I am interested in all of these free editions for my web projects because it seems like it offers simpler scalability than MySQL down the road. Most high-end web developers--which I certainly am not--often end up having to find ways to get off of MySql as the site grows. Am I the only one who likes the idea of these scalable databases that I can buy later on?

On the other hand, if you're on Windows, it seems like MSSQL 2005 is your clear choice. It surprises me that any of these companies are bothering to compete against Microsoft there. It's beautifully integrated into the Visual Studio IDE, as well as offers .NET-compiled stored procedures and other Windows-centric friendliness. Oracle and IBM have to come up with great linux tools to compete against what Microsoft has created in MSSQL 2005 (Oracle's Raptor is a start)

Wow. No user limits or db size limits?

[WoTG]

You can serve quite a few users on a 4 core server! To me, this looks like a direct attack on MS SQL Server. A lot of software for small and medium sized businesses run on SQL Server. I doubt that IBM has much sales volume at the low end anyway, so what have they got to lose?

Re:IBM Undercutting Itself?

[Kadin2048]

My theory on why the specs are so high is because IBM can afford to do that, without cutting into much of their marketshare. At least on the hardware end -- IBM does offer some lower-end servers, but their bread and butter are the high-end ones. So where somebody like Microsoft has to limit the specs on the free version pretty severely, because otherwise they won't have a retail product to sell, IBM knows that a lot of people want to run their database on big iron. And big iron is a lot of money, not just in the hardware, but also in the service contracts and stuff that go along with it.

If your database is mostly used on commodity, low-end hardware, you can't give away a version that runs on a quad-core, 4GB machine: that's eating into your home market. IBM can, because a lot of their revenue (I'm guessing) comes from machines much further up the specification ladder than that. In fact, they would love you to run DB/2 on a high end machine, because the sooner you do, the sooner you'll make use of it, and probably the sooner you'll find its limits. (Following the general rule that software expands to fill whatever resources you allocate to it.) And when you hit the limits of the commodity/low-end hardware, IBM would be more than happy to help you migrate your DB/2 install into something a little sweeter. For a price, naturally.

Also, since they're last to the free-version game, they want to one-up everyone else. Simple competition.

Anyway, I think the "spec creep" is a good thing for consumers, both IBM's and otherwise, because it might cause a 'free version war,' that can only be a good thing in the end.