> Does Oracle or Sql Server on a pc server run slower than DB2/400 ?   (
> actual question )


> ODBC or ADO from w2k to w2k is much faster than from w2k to
> iSeries. ( based
> on 2 examples from my limited experience )

ODBC is not database access.  ODBC is remote SQL serving, and is a horrible
approach to just about any business architecture design.  If you want
distributed processing, use a client/server design.

As for a real comparison of database access, try performing 100,000,000
inserts on a database with 15 logical views.  OS/400 won't even blink, but
you'll crash most Windows databases and quite a few Unix databases as well,
and even if they survive, they certainly won't come close to the performance
of the AS/400.

> We tried to store an image systems image files on the IFS of a
> central as400
> instead of the central NT file server. Performance of the NT file
> server was
> much better.  Not even close.

Here's where people really get confused.  File serving is not database
access.  The AS/400 is not a file server.  It is a relational database
transaction processor.  Using the AS/400 database to store image files is
like using a Lamborghini to tow a boat - it's the wrong tool.

> Data queue and DDM between as400's and pc to as400 is too slow.

As compared to what?  Have you ever really programmed a data queue?  I use
them all the time and the performance is lightening fast.  What language are
you using to access the data queues?  Something reasonably fast like Java or
a toy language ilke VB?

> No "modern programming" examples ( I tried to respond in that vein in a
> response to Phil Hall ),  but these are examples of modern applications.

All you've said is that ODBC and file serving aren't very fast on the
AS/400.  I've responded by saying that the AS/400 isn't suited for file
serving and that ODBC isn't suited for any real business application.  If
your contention is that some sort of ODBC application with a VB front end is
"modern programming", then I suggest you avoid the AS/400 entirely and run
your applications on something cheap, because they are unlikely to last long
enough to give you a decent return on your investment.

> I disagree strongly that applications have to be written to the underlying
> hardware and platform.  This increases complexity if you dont mind me
> trotting out that word again. It stinks that we need NT in our shop. Makes
> system operation and integration much more difficult.

Whether you agree or not is immaterial.  Whether it makes your job more
difficult is immaterial.  The discussion was about performance, not about
how hard your job is.  You are paid to do the work required to make the best
performing system possbile for your end users, not to find the easiest
possible way to get things done.  Listening to complaints about how hard
systems integration is today makes me wonder how we ever made it through the
days when we had to write our own device drivers to install a new disk

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.