Migrating all of a company's databases into one platform may be an admin's dream, but how does it affect the rest of the business? Whether you decide to consolidate or integrate, we look at the issues you face.
Performance. Scalability. Flexibility. After decades of technological progress, we still expect the same things from our databases--and the leading products deliver them well. Yet the way we think about databases has changed dramatically as faster systems, better inter-system connectivity, and new application architectures force vendors and customers to regularly reconsider their database requirements.
Let it be said that companies don't buy databases anymore. Rather, they buy applications, which happen to be backed by a database and inevitably provide a way of extracting, analysing, and publishing that data. Integration partners, tasked with creating workable solutions on customers' behalf, typically have more say over which platform the system will be based on, then later worry about integrating that choice with the rest of the company's environment.
Whereas strategic planning sessions used to be full of debates about the relative merits of one platform against another, these days the leading databases are all more or less on par in terms of functionality and performance. Industry consolidation and natural attrition have marginalised or eliminated many one-time contenders, leaving customers with fewer but better choices when selecting a database platform.
The database market, which IDC believes will be worth US$20 billion globally by 2006, has become extremely top-heavy. Gartner's latest Magic Quadrant market analysis, published in May, recognised just six major database platforms. Teradata, Oracle, and IBM's DB2 all led in completeness of vision and ability to execute, while Microsoft's SQL Server lagged in completeness of vision but was still seen as a strong contender.
Sybase also fared less well, although Gartner recognised its appeal in niche applications. But it had just 3.2 percent market share in 2000, according to Gartner, which gave Oracle 33.8 percent of the US$8.8 billion worldwide database market that year. IBM was a close second with 30.1 percent (but would have pulled even with Oracle after adding Informix's 3.0 percent market share), with Microsoft a promising but fast-moving third place at 14.9 percent.
Gartner expects further consolidation in the future: Tandem's Non-Stop Server--whose fate is increasingly up in the air since it changed hands again with Hewlett-Packard's recent purchase of Compaq--may simply fall off the charts as HP's server strategy pushes it towards Intel-based commodity systems running Microsoft or higher-volume Unix software. Also recently lost were niche players such as Progress and Computer Associates' CA-Ingres, which have failed to keep pace at the leading edge of the market.
While Oracle and DB2 remain popular among enterprises, third-place SQL Server poses the biggest threat in the long term. According to IDC, the database outgrew its competitors last year--confirming that it's becoming increasingly entrenched within the enterprise market as many customers see it as a natural complement to Windows 2000 deployments. Better price-performance ratios continue to improve its appeal.
Forrester Research estimates corporate database spend to average of US$664,000 annually among the Global 3500 enterprises. The majority of this money goes to transactional and increasingly Web-linked databases, with more complex configurations far less popular. That may be a boon for SQL Server, which is building its high-end credentials, but has been successful in using partners to build its footprint in the enterprise.
Despite the market dominance of Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server, however, they're not always the best choice. Sybase, for one, saw second-quarter revenues jump 40 percent over the first quarter this year, largely based on the company's focus on vertical industries and cross-platform capabilities.
"The days when people would buy databases for databases' sake are well and truly gone," says Sybase ANZ director Peter Fletcher. "Customers don't want to talk unless we can tell them how to reduce their costs and increase revenues."
CBHS Friendly Society Limited, an AU$90 million insurance company that services some 110,000 customers affiliated with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, was one such company. In association with development house Network Logic, CBHS used Sybase as the platform underscoring Paragon21, a health fund management system originally built for CBHS internal use, which the companies are now commercialising for sale to other funds. CHBS now has around 75 employees using the Windows 2000-based system, but wanted a database that could support many more users when installed at other funds.
"We were looking for solutions that were able to scale regardless of the size of the health fund," explains IT manager Lou Casmiri, who also cited the integration between Sybase's PowerBuilder development tools and its eponymous database as a key deciding factor.
"Oracle was overkill in terms of overheads, DB2 was too narrow for what we were trying to do with it, and we felt SQL Server wasn't as strong. And they're all a mixed group of products bundled together to get a solution; [using Sybase] we can say Paragon21 is one solution, and customers know who to call to support it."
You fail to mention the inroads MySql is making.
regards