IBM Db2 Database Reviews

We are a bank. The banking system uses IBM Db2 Database to save data in the database.

I have found the most valuable feature to be its availability. There is almost no downtime and the performance is very good.

I would like to see some artificial intelligence brought into the solution. Additionally, we need a way to gather some reporting information from the bank.

I have been working with IBM Db2 Database for a year now.

There are no real issues with the overall stability of IBM Db2 Database.

We do not have any problems with scalability. I would say give high marks for scalability.

Technical support is excellent. I would like to see better documentation. We have to speak to a support representative when we can not find the documentation on an issue we are facing.

From a performance perspective, I prefer SAP HANA for performance.

I would recommend IBM Db2 Database as a ten on a scale of one to ten. It is very powerful and responsive. 

The only reason we are using IBM Db2 Database is that our client has an IBM setup for a data warehouse.

IBM Db2 Database could improve the user-defined functions. There are some user-defined functions that are missing, such as the spring functions. I used to have  Teradata for my projects and I was used to working in the environment. They had a good set of user-defined functions.

In a future release of the IBM Db2 Database, it could be helpful to have SQL assistance. Teradata had this feature and it was very useful to connect to warehouses.

I have been using IBM Db2 Database for approximately one year.

The stability of IBM Db2 Database is stable. We have not faced any downtime in one year. Our work is mostly during business hours and during that time, we haven't faced any downtime. However, we did see some performance issues when we are running multiple queries. The client's setup could be causing these performance issues. We are pushing that client to have the environment ready for multiple users so that they can query the database easily and faster data travel.

I have not used the support from IBM Db2 Database.

I have previously used Teradata and I started my career on it as a developer. I was doing migrations from Db2 or different databases to Teradata. The database of Teradata is very useful and is performance-based when it comes to data warehouse solutions.

We have three to four people in our DBA team for the maintenance of this solution.

I rate IBM Db2 Database a six out of ten.

The primary use case of the IBM Db2 Database is our trading platform.

We use store procedures and SQL. 

We have some tables with partitions, as well as some tables with a large amount of data. 

We use partitions, we use views, and we know who uses them.

We don't have any compatibility issues because we use all IBM products. We use every IBM product. That is why we use IBM's developer tool as well. We never encounter any product compatibility issues during development and deployment.

That is one of the good things that happened to us, in my opinion.

When we had server-related issues, such as a database outage, compatibility and support were good. I believe that because the support is good, they jump in and assist us in determining the root cause. 

The product is really reliable. 

We have seen very few instances of problems, overall IBM products are valuable.

The most valuable features are compatibility and support. 

I am currently moving away from that core application. I am not focusing on the solution. 

It is our trading application, and there are some reservations, about continuing to upgrade to the latest versions even though we are currently running on older versions. I believe the first step would be to upgrade it to the most recent versions and then see if any improvements are required while continuing to provide feedback on older versions.

The pricing could be improved, it's expensive.

I am not working on it as closely these days, but our application began in 2001, and we have been using the IBM Db2 database since then.

IBM products are very nice and perform very well.

IBM Db2 Database is a stable product.

We use a scalable WebSphere Application Server topology, but it's a monolithic application that can only be scaled vertically, not horizontally, because it's a monolithic single database, but those limitations exist. But there are times when I believe we are pleased with the product.

We have multiple production environments and various resources, as well as separate teams to manage the database and separate teams to manage the Application Server. I believe it began with a small team, but as time passed, I believe the number of environments and teams increased. Teams are popular now. I believe we have teams dedicated to each area.

I can say that there are approximately 100 developers, both offshore and onshore.

We have support. In my opinion, they are prompt, we receive responses from IBM within two to three hours. 

There are some challenges. There may be one or two instances where it exceeds, but we are content with that.

The product is very reliable and stable, and we used to receive prompt responses from IBM on support. 

Previously, we were using the WebSphere Application Server. Those applications are in maintenance mode.

We also worked with the Application Developer,m which is the Rational Application Developer for WebSphere software. It is running on legacy Java version 8.

No one is currently using this software because everyone has upgraded to the latest version, but our application is still running with an older version. I don't believe anyone is currently using the older version of Java and the Application Developer that we are.

It's an older version of Java, and I don't believe any developmental improvements will be made to the tool as of now. Because we are not using the most recent version of the tool and the most recent version of the WebSphere Application Server, the feedback I could provide may be ineffective.

We are in the process of migrating to the AWS Cloud.

Our design approach is to convert our monolithic applications to microservices.

We have not used Hadoop, High-Availability Clustering, or Backup and Recovery, we only use the Application Server to host our applications.

The monolithic application is hosted on-premises.

We installed the system in 2001 and have been using it ever since.

The maintenance and support staff is quite small. We have a dedicated database team, we can support multiple database products in addition to Db2.

I am aware that IBM pricing is expensive in comparison to other products. 

However, I am not the person who dealt with pricing.

It is expensive when compared to other products.

We are moving away from IBM products.

Everyone is now gravitating toward AWS and cloud computing. And this is a legacy monolithic platform. My advice will be ineffective. The legacy system was designed in the year 2000.

When we first launched our product, IBM hosted our client platform.

Our client insisted on using IBM products, but I believe we are now satisfied. However, the company where we started, has now been acquired by four different companies.

We are working on a different company that has Java-based products, department-based products, and many other products. It's obvious it's a trade. We will build a trading platform on which our clients and sponsors will trade.

I would rate IBM Db2 Database an eight out of ten.

It's shipped with another software IBM product called Maximo. I'm using it just as an underline. It is a typical database. I use it as a database container.  

The setup process has become much easier recently. 

It is quite stable.

The solution can scale well. 

I am not heavy into developing in Db2. All my development is in the application itself, not in the Db2. Therefore, it's hard to think about areas it needs to improve in. 

The user interface is not user-friendly. There's a converter tool that is much easier for us in comparison. 

We would like the product to have tutorials and answers to questions and troubleshooting to be easier to find online. It's hard to find the answers you're looking for. 

I need data replication to be much more efficient than what is available in the current version. 

I've used the solution for around three years now. 

The solution is stable. Even if there are a large number of records, the performance stays the same. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. If you want to expand it, you can. 

We don't really have individual users. It comes as part of a package and therefore it's hard to say who is using it and who isn't. 

They need better support and better online resources. If I try to Google something to troubleshoot, I cannot find an accessible answer. 

Neutral

The initial setup has recently become easier and more straightforward. A lot of enhancements have happened here. Still, it is a bit complex. 

I am not paying the license for it individually. It's included in the package.

That said, the cost in general could be more reasonable for the package as a whole. 

We did look at other options and found them to be more reasonably priced. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. However, I'd recommend other potential users try to find a cheaper option. I'd rate it overall at a seven out of ten. 

We use IBM Db2 Database to monitor the deadlock's thread pool status of a particular DB or the particular process or whatever the corresponding DB instance is. We do this for the customer's requirement.

The most valuable feature of the IBM Db2 Database is security.

 I have been using IBM Db2 Database for two years.

IBM Db2 Database is stable.

I have found IBM Db2 Database scalable.

The technical support can be faster.

I have not used other solutions in this category other than IBM Db2 Database.

The initial setup of the IBM Db2 Database is straightforward. The full implementation took approximately one month.

We did the implementation of the IBM Db2 Database in-house.

I would recommend this solution to others. If some planning is done and things are in place then the solution will work as expected.

I rate IBM Db2 Database an eight out of ten.

I'm using this solution for a financial network. I make and prepare the databases for analysis.

I'm using version 11.5. There are 1,200 people using this solution in my organization. It's deployed on-premise.

It's very secure.

The command line part of this solution could be much better. Redshift is a lot better. It's easier to work with them. IBM Db2 is a little bit outdated.

I've been using this solution for two years.

It's scalable.

Technical support isn't very helpful when I've had problems.

It's not easy to set up. It takes a long time, especially compared to other solutions.

It's very expensive.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10.

It is installed on the mainframe that we use for our applications.

It's the best solution in terms of security, performance, and availability because the system is available 24/7.

The problem with this environment is that any software that you install is very costly because there are no free tools for this environment.

The environment itself comes at a very high cost because the mainframe machine is very costly, and the licensing cost is very high as well.

I've been using IBM Db2 Database for the past 22 years.

It's very stable, and the performance is very good.

We use IBM technical support for the big bugs related to the operating system and the database. We haven't faced any problems with the database. Sometimes, with the operating system we need some fixes, and technical support has sent us those. On the application side, our team develops the application and solves any problems related to it.

Previously, we used COBOL with a database sold by Computer Associates. We didn't have lot of choices for mainframes at the time. The best database that can run on the mainframe is the IBM Db2 Database, and we have stayed with Db2 from 2000 to the present.

The initial setup was quite simple because we've been working in this area for more than 40 years.

It took about a year and a half to develop and deploy the whole application.

We developed the application, and we deployed it using a solution strategy. We have an IBM partner who gave us all the software that we needed, and we implemented it ourselves.

We had three system engineers, two people for the database, and two people for the application.

Our ROI is big because we earned about 100 billion in our currency.

It's very expensive for West African countries like ours.

We are currently in discussions with IBM concerning the reduction of licensing costs. We have a license based on the capacity of the machine and are looking into a license based on usage.

There weren't a lot of choices for mainframes at the time.

If you're going to use it for the first time, you would need lot of training and some technical support. You would need support during development as well.

I would rate this solution at nine on a scale from one to ten.

IBM Db2 Database is a relational database and we use it for all our company's transaction data.

IBM Db2 Database has good performance.

The solution could improve by providing more integration.

I have been using IBM Db2 Database for approximately three years.

IBM Db2 Database is stable.

We have not had an issue with the scalability of the IBM Db2 Database.

The technical support is good.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM Db2 Database a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as the main data store warehouse for the corporation.

It's great as a backend database system utilized to store the data for the entire corporate structure.

Due to the fact that we're going to go with the hardware-specifics of the fact that it's bundled in IBM i, it's exceedingly reliable, as the architecture of the IBM i just does not go down.

It runs very well. It runs very solid. It does everything that I expect it to do. It offers all of the standard RDBMS functionalities and capabilities. I consider Db2 to be a direct competitor with Oracle and SQL servers any day of the week. The difference is what flavor of Db2 you're going to run. You're going to run the Linux Unix, are going to run the IBM i version, and then it comes down to, for me, the IBM i, due to the fact that the architecture does not fail. It does not go down. It does not get hacked. There's never been a successful hacking of an IBM i architecture. You're looking at an environment where your data is extremely secure, compared to a lot of the other RDBMS systems.

The solution is configurable and has what you would consider to be a desktop management configuration capability too. You can partition it off, and you can set up different instances of it and such. The interface is more than adequate. There's nothing great about it, there's nothing poor about it. It's more than capable of doing what you need to do if you do need to do DBA maintenance kind of work to it.

It's going to be a much smaller marketplace for this product, and most significantly, IBM doesn't target marketing to that marketplace. Their view of it is they're maintaining it, they're continuing to upgrade it, they're continuing to grow it, however, they don't go out and try and sell that as an architectural solution the way they do Linux and Unix. That's because once you get inside of the IBM architecture, up until about six or eight years ago, it was not open source. You were tied to the development language of either COBOL or the development language of RPG if you wanted to develop on that platform.

Now, it now supports Java and PHP, and it does open source, but for those reasons, IBM was never looking to market or push that as a viable solution. They didn't push the IBM i as a direct competitor to Oracle, they pushed their Linux Unix versions of it, their IBM Z series against Oracle and SQL server, as it's a more direct head-to-head comparison. The IBM i architecture is the one-off if you will. You're not going to see a lot of people looking at it.

I've been using the solution for 25 years at this point. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable and reliable. The hardware does not fail, the software does not fail, and so the reliability is there, however, the reliability isn't necessarily Db2, it's the fact that it's the IBM i that has the reliability. Db2 is inheriting that, and again, is staying up and running because of that.

The system scales very well. It runs the new power nine chips and it's about to run the new power 10 chips that IBM is releasing as well. For that reason, the current systems out there are 16 CPU Power 10 processors that can have terabytes of memory associated with them. It performs extremely well in the environment. 

The system is very scalable to very large magnitudes. There are some very large Fortune 10 and Fortune 15 companies that run Db2 systems and can attest to the scalability

IBM's technical support is fine and their people are good. When you give them a call they get after it. We're satisfied with the level of service provided. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. Due to the fact that it's bundled inside of the system, you don't have to do any special implementation. As soon as you have the system up and running, and the operating system running, Db2 is already running. There was an instance of it running on the architecture at that moment. There's absolutely zero setup in that environment.

It's hard to separate out the exact pricing. It's bundled; you can't compare head-to-head against Oracle and SQL server at that point, as the costing is embedded inside of the purchase of the operating system software.

We're not a software provider, we're an end-user.

When you start talking about Db2 on Linux and Unix, the current version is version 17.3 or 17.4. The IBM i, the versioning doesn't work the same way, it has to do with the operating system levels that you're running, as to which version of Db2 you're in. It's integrated in with the system, operating system. It's not actually an independent version of Db2, it's integrated in with the operating system on that platform.

Db2 is different in our architectural world than standalone Db2. It's not like standing up an instance of Db2 would be the same as it would in Oracle, or a Microsoft SQL instance, on a Windows 10 server or a Windows 2008 server or whatever it may be. It's the fact that it's bundled in with the software, with the operating system, with the hardware, when you buy that machine. Since it's all bundled inside of it, we're having to go out and independently do things with it. It's inherent, it's bundled. It's probably not the best example of Db2, because even when IBM goes out and talks about Db2, they talk about Db2 zOS, which is the Linux Unix installation. You very rarely see them talking about the IBM i installations. In fact, in even the documentation I was reading in the comparisons, it was comparing the Linux Unix IBM Db2 against Oracle, and against the Microsoft SQL Server.

If you're looking at an alternative to Oracle or to Microsoft SQL server, look at Db2, and then once you're in Db2's world, take a look at IBM i against the IBM Z, and compare the two of them. The stigma that the IBM i has, is that RPG language barrier. Since that barrier has now been removed, you can do everything that you can do on the IBM Z as well. The stability of the platform is what people need to look at. There is a trade-off of uptime and never been hacked operating system against versus Microsoft and Oracle in the news every single day. Microsoft cloud just made a comment in the last 48, 72 hours about their cloud services being hacked. That's just something you do not see happening with that IBM series architecture.

Since Db2 rides inside of very secure architecture, people should probably give it a very good, hard look, compared to Oracle and Microsoft, and say, "Hey it might not be as popular. It might not be as big a deal, but if my data is more secure, and I don't have downtime and I have performance, is it something that we should be looking at?" 

I've been at companies that have looked to move off of that, and when they've looked at the Oracle solution, and, no matter how you power it, and no matter how you scale it, whether you scale it up or you scale it wide, the performance is simply just not there compared to what the IBM systems offer through their Db2, whether it be the i or the Z through what they offer internally in their performance capabilities. Your iOS, your throughputs, your performance cycles, you cannot touch it with Microsoft or with Oracle scalability-wise. That is far and away the most scalable systems and the highest performing systems of the set of them.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

We are using it for our SAP system.

Db2 Database has given us good results since we have started to use it. We predominantly use IBM hardware, and this is one of the reasons why we started to use Db2 Database. 

Db2 Database has a very good HADR capability. High availability resilience is also good in this solution. It also has pureScale, which allows you to upgrade one node to get very good and high-level resilience. If you are using a database on five nodes, you can take one node down, upgrade that, and let that node up. You can then bring the second node down, upgrade that, and so on.

The only drawback that we see in Db2 Database is the crash recovery. When there is a crash and somebody has to do the recovery, Db2 Database first stops, and then it does any crash recovery. In Oracle Database, crash recovery happens within the database. The database is not shut down.

I have been using this solution for five or six years.

Initially, there were hiccups, but now, it is a robust database. The only limitation that we have found is crash recovery. In terms of bugs, every database will have some bugs that will hit you. I don't see much in terms of bugs in Db2 Database. Whatever known bugs are there, we get those issues.

They are really very good. Overall, if I have to give a rating, I will give them an eight and a half or a nine out of ten. Their response to our requirements is quite good. They have good resources at the technical end. They take us very seriously. It might be because we are one of the largest accounts. I don't know what happens with medium-scale industries or small-scale industries. 

We migrated from Oracle Database to Db2 Database because it was quite a good and cost-effective solution. Oracle Database was coming out to be expensive.

The initial setup was complex altogether. It was complex because we were moving from Oracle Database to Db2 Database. A lot of code changes were required. 

We did not buy it. It came with our hardware without any complimentary maintenance. If I compare Db2 Database with Oracle Database, its price is lower than Oracle Database.

I would recommend Db2 Database to others because, as time passed, they have made a lot of changes, such as crash recovery. The time of crash recovery is reduced by almost 60% to 70%. Db2 Database also has Db2 BLU, which actually is in-memory. We have not explored this particular feature, but I would recommend others to explore it. With Db2 BLU, it becomes equivalent to HANA. We are seeing it being used a lot in large banks etc.

Among Oracle, Db2, and SQL databases, I would rate Oracle first, Db2 second, and SQL third. I personally believe Oracle is the most robust database. Db2 is the second robust database.

I would rate Db2 Database an eight out of ten.