Db2 vs. LevelBlue DbProtect vs. SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)

I have primarily used it as the basis for a SIS - but I have migrated more than a few systems from there database systems to DB2 (Filemaker, MySQL, etc.). DB2 does have a better structural approach, as opposed to Filemaker, which allows for more data consistency, but this can also lead to an inflexibility that can sometimes be counterintuitive when attempting to compensate for the flexibility of the work environment as Schools tend to have an all in one approach.

Incentivized

Monitoring database activity internally was a huge concern for my company, which is why we implemented DbProtect. I would recommend this to anyone that has lower end traffic on their SQL servers. My company appeared to be too big for DbProtect and was not a good fit, but it would be useful for a smaller company.

Incentivized

We use this for an inbuilt security management system, where it performs well in a scaled setup with a large volume of live data with high availability. Also, the performance is up to the mark for the large statement flow. From a DBA perspective, a lot of parameters need to be fine-tuned for the specific environment needs, which can cause overhead. Expertise is limited, and the learning curve is steep for the SAP ASE.

Incentivized

• While we query a large set of data, the results are generally available within a minute or so.
• Always reliable - I have never experienced an application going down.
• It is easy to write queries and find tables and columns.
• We can log in smoothly without any headaches.

Incentivized

• Easy to create filters.
• Interface was easy to use.
• Process to create filters as straight forward.

Incentivized

• High availability and reliability.
• High performance.
• Monitoring of threshold based events.
• Security at multiple levels.
• Query plan optimization.
• Lock management.
• Access to HANA.

Incentivized

• Learning curve for DB resources - Improvements to UI or native command line built-ins can help with increasing efficiencies for DB resources
• Better resource utilization monitoring and recommendations
• Continue to adopt support for modern frameworks and languages making it easier for organizations to see making Db2 the easy first choice

Incentivized

• Speed of interface.
• The trace function utilized high resources at times and would sometimes crash servers.
• Support could have been better, but this is when the company was under Trustwave and even the owners before then.

Incentivized

• A quick button for devs to switch instances into a dev mode (eliminating logs, and such).
• Licensing is far too complicated. Simplify pricing.

Incentivized

The DB2 database is a solid option for our school. We have been on this journey now for 3-4 years so we are still adapting to what it can do. We will renew our use of DB2 because we don’t see. Major need to change. Also, changing a main database in a school environment is a major project, so we’ll avoid that if possible.

Incentivized

Our licenses are perpetual. It is the support that we will be renewing. We will renew because we continue to use and receive value from the product.

Incentivized

You have to be well versed in using the technology, not only from a GUI interface but from a command line interface to successfully use this software to its fullest.

Incentivized

Well-suited in the security domain, high performance, and low latency of the DBMS. In terms of the DBA perspective, a dedicated monitoring tool (Cockpit) helps a lot in terms of managing the database, which helps in identifying bottlenecks during performance issues. Also, it helps us to send custom alerts related to Database activities.

Incentivized

I have never had DB2 go down unexpectedly. It just works solidly every day. When I look at the logs, sometimes DB2 has figured out there was a need to build an index. Instead of waiting for me to do it, the database automatically created the index for me. At my current company, we have had zero issues for the past 8 years. We have upgrade the server 3 times and upgraded the OS each time and the only thing we saw was that DB2 got better and faster. It is simply amazing.

Incentivized

The performances are exceptional if you take care to maintain the database. It is a very powerful tool and at the same time very easy to use. In our installation, we expect a DB machine on the mainframe with access to the database through ODBC connectors directly from branch servers, with fabulous end users experience.

Incentivized

Easily the best product support team. :) Whenever we have questions, they have answered those in a timely manner and we like how they go above and beyond to help.

Incentivized

Incredibly responsive, saving us countless hours in troubleshooting.

Incentivized

the material was very clear and all subjects have been handled

Incentivized

db2 work well with the application, also the replication tool can keep it up

DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out better than other similar products.

Incentivized

The price is the complete opposite and Imperva provided things that DbProtect did not. I would suggest a cleaner interface and more reporting in DbProtect. These things may exist now, but did not when I was a customer of DbProtect. DbProtect when configured correctly will do what you want it to and help secure databases.

Incentivized

Incentivized

By
using DB2 only to support my IzPCA activities, my knowledge here
is somewhat limited.

Anyway,
from what I was able to understand, DB2 is extremely scallable.

Maybe the information below could serve as an example of scalability.

Customer have an huge mainframe environment, 13x z15 CECs, around
80 LPARs, and maybe more than 50 Sysplexes (I am not totally sure about this
last figure...)

Today
we have 7 IzPCA
databases, each one in a distinct Syplex.

Plans
are underway to have, at the end, an small LPAR, with only one DB2 sub-system,
and with only one database, then transmit the data from a lot of other LPARs,
and then process all the data in this only one database.

The
IzPCA collect process (read the data received, manipulate it, and insert rows
in the tables) today is a huge process, demanding many elapsed
hours, and lots of CPU.

Almost
100% of the tables are PBR type, insert jobs run in parallel, but in 4 of the 7
database, it is a really a huge and long process.

Combining
the INSERTs loads from the 7 databases in only one will be impossible.......,,,,

But,
IzPCA recently introduced a new feature, called "Continuous
Collector".

By
using that feature, small amounts of data will be transmited to the central
LPAR at every 5 minutes (or even less), processed immediately,in
a short period of time, and with small use of CPU,
instead of one or two transmissions by day, of very large amounts of data and
the corresponding collect jobs occurring only once or twice a day, with long
elapsed times, and huge comsumption of CPU

I
suspect the total CPU seconds consumed will be more or less the same in
both cases, but in the new method it will occur in small bursts
many times a day!!

Incentivized

• Negative: Difficult and manual deployment
• Negative: Missing assistants from common monitoring metrics
• Positive: Stability
• Positive: Performance
• Positive: Resiliency and high availability (HADR)
• Positive: Data Replication (Q-Rep)
• Positive: Interaction with storage subsystems for backups (TSM, SVC)
• Positive: Gigantic monitoring features in the form of table functions

Incentivized

• Increase employee efficiency by putting all the information in front of us via alerts.
• Helped secure our database tables.
• I believe better customer service is needed for this product.

Incentivized

• Positive ROI.
• Ease of use with minimal training required to write high performance SQL (assumes a knowledge of SQL already).
• Ease of database administration.
• Sometimes upgrades can be difficult.
• Changing platforms can be difficult (changing say from SPARC to Intel).
• Changing operating systems can be difficult (changing from Solaris to linux).

Incentivized