IBM Considering DB2 on Mac OS X

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.'"

Too late?

[babbage]

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?

Re:Too late?

[foobar104]

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.

Re:Too late?

[xil]

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.

Re:Too late?

[babbage]

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.

Re:Too late?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Too late?

[wchin]

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).

Re:Too late?

[drsmithy]

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.

Are XServe's quite there?

[ZeroLogic]

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?

Re:Are XServe's quite there?

[kwerle]

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?!?

The real question is this.

[BoomerSooner]

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.

Re:The real question is this.

[foobar104]

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?

Re:The real question is this.

[jimmu]

Also, keep in mind that SAPDB [sapdb.org] 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.

Bring it on!

[dhardman]

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.

Re:Bring it on!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Bring it on!

[phillyclaude]

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.

IBM getting MS back

[Zelet]

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

Re:IBM getting MS back

[PythonOrRuby]

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

WebObjects Adaptor

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Apple back end

[Hi Larry!]

What a stupid and childish comment.

Re:Apple back end

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

Re:Apple back end

[madsenj37]

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

Apple and IBM hardware ties?

[ilovehippies]

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

No thanks

[Zhe Mappel]

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

I can think of a use

[jbolden]

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.

uniVerse or Unidata

[ed 'g3']

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...