What is the best value for money database system for Windows NT/2000
platform, on Intel-based servers? I am also looking for performance
and easy maintenance, for a company size of about 900, with an MIS
section of only 10 (1 manager, 4 execs and 5 technicians doing
desktop/network support) but no specialist database administrator.

We intend to run (amongst others) Maintenance Materials Management
Systems (either Maximo or Datastream), which will be intranet
web-based, accessible to all staff, but estimated about 30
simultaneous users.

I would appreciate reasons that would convince a computer illiterate
management. Links to authoritative surveys, benchmarkings by
independent parties and cost estimates would be very useful.

For some reason, said management seems to have a liking for Informix.
I vaguely remembered that this database is already dead, right?

Any other information that this database newbie didn't think of, would
certainly be helpful too. ;-}

regards, sabre23t =^.^=

Hello sabre23t!

I will add my voice to the chorus and say that Mysql will certainly
give you the most value for the money.  Free is hard to beat!  One
attractive feature of mysql is the ability to scale without having to
worry about licensing.

The most helpful article I've seen lately was from eWeek magazine,
which published an article called 'Server Databases Clash' in their
Feburary 25, 2002 edition.  You can view the article here:

http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708&a=23115,00.asp

The benchmarks conducted in this article put MySql and Oracle 9i at
the top for performance, reliability, and scalability.  Both were also
able to run for an 8 hour stress test continously without a hiccup. 
Other databases tested included Microsoft SQL Server, IBM DB2 7.2,
Oracle 9i, and Sybase ASE 12.5.0.1.

Another lesser known database is from the Progress software company. 
A few friends of mine swear by it, and it's worth a look as you
investigate your options:

http://www.progress.com/v9/datasheets/rdbms.htm

In the end, you need to convince your management that the product is
cheap and it works.  They won't understand tech, but they will
understand ROI.  Convince them that your choice of database app will
deliver measurable results.  To that end, your decision must be based
on how quickly you can bring a stable and useful application online.

Good luck in convincing the management!   

Nishka-ga

Nishka's answer looks good, especially since he found the website that
I found before I ask the question. To test something/someone you
always should have an answer to compare with, right? So this first
question of mine on Google Answer was prompted by a question a friend
asked me over the phone. On which I then spent about 30 or 40 mins
researching (perhaps that was worth only USD4 ;). Anyway, here was my
answer to that friend for comparison.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail 
To: Mohamad Jamil Sulaiman 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Databases comparisons for your reference ...

Dr Jamil,

}} As per our phone discussion, some databases comparison for your
reference ...

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=23115,00.asp (extracts
below)
February 25, 2002
Server Databases Clash
By  Timothy Dyck 

Finding solid performance data to help choose among competing
technologies is as tough as creating the data in the first place. This
is particularly true in the database space, where database vendors
routinely use no-benchmarking clauses in their license agreements to
block publication of benchmarks of which they do not approve.

Still, this is data that customers should have to make informed
purchases, and, as we've found again and again at eWEEK Labs,
benchmarking is an unmatched technique for flushing out unexpected
technical strengths and failings that can make or break a project. 
[...]

We tested IBM's DB2 7.2 with FixPack 5, Microsoft Corp.'s SQL Server
2000 Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 2, MySQL AB's MySQL 4.0.1
Max, Oracle Corp.'s Oracle9i Enterprise Edition 9.0.1.1.1 and Sybase
Inc.'s ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise) 12.5.0.1.
Overall, Oracle9i and MySQL had the best performance and scalability
(see charts, images 1 and 2 in slideshow), with Oracle9i just very
slightly ahead of MySQL for most of the run. ASE, DB2, Oracle9i and
MySQL finished in a dead heat up to about 550 Web users. At this
point, ASE's performance leveled off at 500 pages per second, about
100 pages per second less than Oracle9i's and MySQL's leveling-off
point of about 600 pages per second. DB2's performance dropped
substantially, leveling off at 200 pages per second under high loads. 
[...]

Direct comparability was a major goal of the benchmark. All databases
were tested on the same hardware platform (Hewlett-Packard Co.
provided HP NetServer LT 6000r servers with four 700MHz Xeon CPUs, 2GB
of RAM and 24 10,000-rpm 9.1GB Ultra3 SCSI hard drives used for
database storage) and the same operating system (Windows 2000 Advanced
Server with Service Pack 2).

We used a Web-based bookstore application called Nile to generate
database load and stress-tested Nile using Empirix Inc.'s e-Test Suite
6.0 load testing tool, with loads from 50 to 1,000 concurrent Web
users.

We selected BEA Systems Inc.'s WebLogic 6.1 with Service Pack 1 as our
application server platform (see related story) and wrote the Nile
application in JavaServer Pages.  [...]

}} And DB2 versus Informix future directions ...

http://www-4.ibm.com/software/data/informix/directions.html (extracts
below)
Informix Portfolio: Future Directions 
"There will be no forced migration to DB2," said Janet Perna during
her keynote speech at Giga Information Group Inc.'s GigaWorld IT Forum
in Las Vegas. An IBM white paper discussing IBM's future direction for
Informix products confirms IBM's intention to protect Informix's
customers investments, not forcing anyone to migrate to DB2 and
reiterates support for multi-hardware platforms and open standards.
The white paper “IBM Informix Portfolio Future Directions” has been
substantially updated. This document sends a tremendously impressive
message to all of our customers and partners, since it conveys a
message of secure investment to the IBM Informix users and a thrilling
picture of innovation and advancement to the industry at large.
To obtain a copy of revised paper, please contact your account
representative. The "IBM Informix Portfolio Future Directions" Version
2 white paper is directly available to registered commercial members
of IBM PartnerWorld for Developers and registered IBM Informix
Solutions Alliance Partners.
... implying IBM prefers migration from Informix to DB2, but will
allow/support (to some extent) IBM Informix users who don't want to.

}} The above found using appropriate google keyword 
}} searches "database+unix+comparison+benchmark",
"db2+informix+future".

Hope that helps. 
regards,
S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail

Well, if you can get any value out of MySQL, it's free. (So that's
infinite value for the money :)
See http://www.mysql.org/.

If you're seriously considering Maximo you should be aware that it's
seamless with Oracle. Maximo also stands out among maintenance
schedulers in that it incorporates a true critical path scheduling
tool originally marketed separately as Project View.

You should probably be looking at "Total Cost of Ownership" rather
than "Value for Money". And that includes the price differential
between say, a Redhat certified PostgreSQL geek and a Microsoft
certified SQL Server geek to be your DBA. Becuase even if you don't
want one now, you will as soon as management wants something
complicated done, or your database server falls over.

Unfortunately it's hard to find a truely "authoritative" survey or
"independent" benchmarking team. In general they're either done on the
cheap, and at best offer annecdotal evidence, or they're done
expensively, and at the behest of one of the vendors. Any survey
linked from a database vendor's website eg:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/Apr02/04-03TCOpr.asp
is automatically suspect. Probably the most authoritative, independent
source of database benchmarks is http://www.tpc.org but it won't
necessarilly give you what you're after, because they tend to focus on
large systems, database clusters and the like. It also costs a lot of
money to get benchmarked by them.

The major systems to consider are: 
Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Informix, Sybase, and PostgreSQL

I am discounting MySQL, Access, and Interbase variants because for 30
simultaneous users they would be a poor solution.

The rest all have their advantages and disadvantages, but ascendant
are Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL. Given the opportunity to
start fresh, Sybase and Informix are best avoided, they are losing
marketshare and mindshare. Informix was bought by IBM, and their focus
is DB2.

If you're not after worldbeating performance, and comitted to the
windows platform (Unix variants _are_ more stable, in general) then
SQL Server 7 will probably give you the best bang for your buck. Easy
to use, lots of knowledge and expertise out there, and it's cheap from
eBay. It's a bit easier to get your head around than Oracle, if your
people are used to GUI based development.

But realisticly, you won't get a _good_ answer to this question
without offering more detail, and more money. I'm spending about $50
worth of consulting time on this answer, and I don't think I've given
you anything like enough information to make your decision.

Some relevant details would be: 
- More about what you intend to do with your database in the short and
long term
- Whether you eventually intend to hire a full time DBA (for 900
staff, and 30 simultaneous users, I'd say it's well justified)
- What your approximate budget (startup and per year) is. 

Moneywise, $100 would be cheap (and well worth it) to get a well
researched answer that took your individual circumstances into
account.

Good luck, anyway. 

Seth Wagoner, Webfoundry Ltd.

You should probably be looking at "Total Cost of Ownership" rather
than "Value for Money". And that includes the price differential
between say, a Redhat certified PostgreSQL geek and a Microsoft
certified SQL Server geek to be your DBA. Becuase even if you don't
want one now, you will as soon as management wants something
complicated done, or your database server falls over.

Unfortunately it's hard to find a truely "authoritative" survey or
"independent" benchmarking team. In general they're either done on the
cheap, and at best offer annecdotal evidence, or they're done
expensively, and at the behest of one of the vendors. Any survey
linked from a database vendor's website eg:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/Apr02/04-03TCOpr.asp
is automatically suspect. Probably the most authoritative, independent
source of database benchmarks is http://www.tpc.org but it won't
necessarilly give you what you're after, because they tend to focus on
large systems, database clusters and the like. It also costs a lot of
money to get benchmarked by them.

The major systems to consider are: 
Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Informix, Sybase, and PostgreSQL

I am discounting MySQL, Access, and Interbase variants because for 30
simultaneous users they would be a poor solution.

The rest all have their advantages and disadvantages, but ascendant
are Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL. Given the opportunity to
start fresh, Sybase and Informix are best avoided, they are losing
marketshare and mindshare. Informix was bought by IBM, and their focus
is DB2.

If you're not after worldbeating performance, and comitted to the
windows platform (Unix variants _are_ more stable, in general) then
SQL Server 7 will probably give you the best bang for your buck. Easy
to use, lots of knowledge and expertise out there, and it's cheap from
eBay. It's a bit easier to get your head around than Oracle, if your
people are used to GUI based development.

But realisticly, you won't get a _good_ answer to this question
without offering more detail, and more money. I'm spending about $50
worth of consulting time on this answer, and I don't think I've given
you anything like enough information to make your decision.

Some relevant details would be: 
- More about what you intend to do with your database in the short and
long term
- Whether you eventually intend to hire a full time DBA (for 900
staff, and 30 simultaneous users, I'd say it's well justified)
- What your approximate budget (startup and per year) is. 

Moneywise, $100 would be cheap (and well worth it) to get a well
researched answer that took your individual circumstances into
account.

Good luck, anyway. 

Seth Wagoner, Webfoundry Ltd.

$4.00,,,,,,,,,geeese,,,,get back on the porch.

Fire the manager
Fire the four execs
Keep three technicians
Hire two database MS geeks
Hire one MS,, god!

PS,,F-Unix...lol

PS - Good luck on teaching computer illiterate management (I feel for
yea) to understand the power of communication.

It is about the perplexity as Dean Kamen inventing a better way for
people to get hit by cars.

Informix is definetly not dead
(http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/020125/037220.html).  It is a very good DB
and has support for pretty much everything out there.  All thought
MySQL (http://www.mysql.com) is definetly a nice to go because it is
free.  It is the most popular open source database.  I have use this
for many applications I have written.  Here is a great developer MySQL
site http://home.wanadoo.nl/techlinq/mysql.html  I have used this with
Perl, Java, and VB apps.  There is a wide tool base for this and also,
pretty much every app server and and product out there supports this
Relational DB.  If you are running very critical apps I would
definetly suggest a comercial DB, because of support reasons,
optimized performance, etc.  For applications that need to run 24 by 7
MySQL is not the way to go.