[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

Title:DEC Rdb against the World
Moderator:HERON::GODFRIND
Created:Fri Jun 12 1987
Last Modified:Thu Feb 23 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1348
Total number of notes:5438

680.0. "Rdb vs. RMS Performance" by GLDOA::RSMITH () Wed Jun 27 1990 16:31

     We have a potential customer who is considering an IBM proposal for a
    database application. IBM is proposing their relational product as an
    alternative to their VSAM solution at a price differential of $4.0
    million dollars. The potential customer is gagging on the price
    difference and wants to know what our performance/price difference is
    between RMS/Rdb.
    
     In order to price our solution accurately and avoid the gag reflex, we
    need more information on the performance differences between RMS and
    Rdb. Could someone please lead me in the right direction for that
    information.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ray
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
680.1MINDER::PICKERINGMan.United, FA Cup '90 WinnersThu Jun 28 1990 12:139
    Well Rdb runtime is packaged with VMS so you only by the media &
    documentation; so no price difference between it and RMS ie free. But for
    Rdb development licenses..get your price book out. $4M is a bit of a
    difference; how many systems is that for?
    
    As for performance, well this can get a bit religious. Rdb engineering
    would say Rdb is better, RMS engineering would say RMS is better. I
    think they're much the same. With Rdb you get better data integrity,
    ease-of-use, better security, better DBA facilities, blah, blah,...
680.2IBM bid?GLDOA::RSMITHThu Jun 28 1990 16:579
    We do not have any moles within the customer's organization, therefore
    we do not know the configuration that IBM is bidding. However, I
    suspect IBM is bidding the air cooled, 43xx series for the VSAM
    proposal and the water cooled, (i.e. expensive environmentals) 3090
    series for the DB2 version.
    
    Thanks for your response,
    
    Ray
680.3NZOV07::HOWARDNZ: Where Digital's Week BeginsSat Jun 30 1990 10:1710
    Why not let us know what systems you propose for your RMS solution,
    and some details on what the customer wants the applications to
    achieve.
    
    RMS solutions are usually "faster" than relational database solutions
    because they are generally asked to do less (no journalling,
    transaction integrity etc).
    

    Cheers, Martin
680.4Relational is futureMAIL::DUNCANGOracle... the one-line databaseWed Jul 04 1990 01:3629
    I believe Rdb would be a performance winner when:
    
    - you are running on a cluster and RMS locks are heavy
    - when you need to spread a physical file (table) across many spindles
    	and don't want to use disk striping
    - when you retrieve records using several indexes
    - when you retrieve related records from separate tables (files) and
    	need to avoid DIO
    - when you need to have flexibility in table design and the number of
    	fields and are likely to be making changes
    
    I believe RMS would be a winner when:
    
    - you did not have time to perform proper Rdb logical and physical
    	design
    - you chose to ignore the trends in processing today which are clearly
    	relational
    
    To summarize:
    
    - Rdb is more difficult to implement due to the number of options for
    	tuning and placement
    - When properly tuned, Rdb should be able to perform as well as, if not
    	better than RMS
    - Rdb would put your customer in the best possible position for future
    	use of the data and unknown changes in the record content
    	(metadata)
    
    -- gerry