Tom, I like the taste of this food for thought! I have raised this issue with TSM developers at SHARE and the short summary of their response is "Cringe". So I don't think it will happen anytime soon if and most likely it will never happen. I agree with you completely that it would be a great option for site with large databases. Plus TSM would have 2 development teams working on the product - the current one plus the database developers who are always trying to make Oracle, DB2 etc. faster.
- Bill At 06:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: >I wonder, also, if there is still any discussion about supporting >the use of an alternate RDBMS underneat TSM. It is quite clear >that there are many more sites with database sizes in the >25-50GB+ range. Five years ago I felt very lonely with a database >of this size, but given the discussions on the listserv over the >past year I feel more comfortable that we are no longer one of >the only sites supporting TSM instances that large. It has always >seemed to me that the database functions of TSM have been the >most problematic (deadlock issues, log full issues, SQL query >performance problems, complicated and unclear recommendations for >physical database layout, etc.). All of these problems have been >solved by Oracle, DB2, and Sybase. Granted there is the issue >that plugging in an external database adds greatly to the >complexity of TSM, and reduces it's "black box-ness", but I think >the resources are available to administer such a beast at >the large sites that require very large databases. > >More food for thought *early* on a Thursday morning. > > -- Tom > >Thomas A. La Porte >DreamWorks SKG >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- Bill Colwell C. S. Draper Lab Cambridge Ma.