Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...

13 posts in ,  Linux Product Futures Discussion Last posting was on 2002-07-27 04:41:24.0Z
Russ Wheaton Posted on 2002-04-09 19:42:35.0Z
From: "Russ Wheaton" <russman@wheatonworld.com>
Subject: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:42:35 -0400
Lines: 3311
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.82.28.199
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:802 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:151
Article PK: 84642

----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Wheaton
To: ase-linux-list@isug.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...


Sethu, Thx for the info, but I am still hungry for more.

Basically everyone, I am thinking about the following:

ASE on LINUX
5 2way servers replacing 1 10way HP or SUN box.
The cost justification is there (that's an understatement) for this type of
move, but what of the software. Near and dear to my heart, what about the
ASE software?

Here is the traditional view: Linux DBMS traditional.jpg

Here is what I am sure folks are thinking about:

Linux DBMS new.jpg

I'm not proposing that either of these linux approaches are correct, or even
they way we (as a community) would go, I'm just VISIOing out loud.

So what are we into?
1) Do we need to have a clustered physical storage solution?
2) Is the abstraction layer in front of or behind (as I've depicted) client
lib? In other words, is it something we would look to Sybase for, or
something we may as well belly up to the bar to do for ourselves?
3) In drawing the pictures I've drawn, do I necessarily have to awaken the
MPP incubus?
4) Is this type of approach the one that Sybase will recommend against
until their dyeing breath? Or is it coming whether we want it to or not?
5) Can I do something like this with minimal impact on my application
developers? And how much should I lean on the dbms vendor to help me
achieve that goal?
6) Do I need to drop the dosage on my prescription medication?

Russ Wheaton

--------------


Here is what I posted to the news group:
================
Companies are inevitably looking at more cost effective HW solutions - AKA
Intel based LINUX serves.

If I am in the traditional land of big business data servers, I am used to
dealing with 10+CPU sun / hp machines for my more heavy workload database
apps.

Now switch me to LINUX - 2CPU based Intel machines.

Most likely I just need to be directed to the information, but here is my
question:

Without adding a routing layer to my application (or other costly things
that give my programmers bad dreams), is Sybase (ASE) keeping up with the
industry desire to run the same db app on FIVE 2way LINUX servers vs ONE
10way sun/hp box?

I think Sybase had better be. If they're not, I have some ideas. If they
are I want to review the white paper / product doc / engineering note / bar
napkin that describes the proposed architecture.

Russ Wheaton
===================




Sethu replied with:

First off, In our 3 year roadmap, we have plans to support Linux blades.

There was limited discussion in the sybase linux isug email alias list.
This is what I answered and I'm also attaching some of the following emails
that came thro'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:51:18 -0800

First off, currently, ASE cannot be used in a clustered environment for
scalability. However it can be used for Availability. However, I want to
add some of my comments on using Clusters for Scalability.

A disclaimer before I start.. This is IMHO.

I strongly believe clusters are good for read-only situations.
They are not at all good for OLTP.

1) If you consider shared disk, the locking contention (which Oracle
claim that they have solved it), will soon show up within 3-4 nodes.

Oracle did a benchmark with Compaq Trucluster GS320 (32-way)
8-Quad system that showed only 5 percent better performance
number (officially published TPCC number) than a 24-way
IBM S85 number.

Compared to the shared disk, we have seen true SMP (Starfire,
superdome) have given 10-30 times scaling comparing
a single CPU system and the largest system on the same hardware.

2) The GS320 along with the interconnect cost ton of money. Plus you
need multi-ported disks. As far as I know these multi-ported disks
cannot scale more than 4 nodes.

3) If you consider shared nothing (which we will eventually implement in
ASE),

unless the user does some kind of load balancing, the function shipping
to the other node and doing the update (for short burst transactions)
far overweigh the scalability improvements one will get.

4) Analysts predict that only 10% of Oracle community will
use ORAC by year 2006. (that is 4 years from now).

My philosophy is

1) If possible do horizontal partitioning and configure it for
availability
cluster pair. You'll get better scalability and better availability
for OLTP
applications.

2) If horizontal partitioning is not possible do vertical partitioning
(more
CPU, faster CPU, more memory all will help to scale)

Systems like Beowulf are very good doing heavy-duty read-only number
crunching

jobs. The challenge using Beowulf for databases is that, database typically
involve lots of I/O. Anytime you do I/O to a single client, the client
eventually
becomes bottleneck. Some solution there would be make our OpenClient
cognizant of database schema and clustered nodes and fire off queries
in parallel using parallel connections at the client side. This is what
MPP did. The drawback with MPP was that knowledge of client side caching
and client side parallelism was not in the OpenClient but was done in
the ControlServer (OpenServer based).

As I said this is MHO.

Thanks,
Sethu

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Nick Barbalich <nick.barbalich@medicals.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:56:52 +1300

Dear Sethu

Could you clarify the following terms in your reply:
1. horizontal partitioning
2. vertical partitioning
3 ORAC

thanks
Nick Barbalich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:15:53 -0800

Horizontal Partitioning (HP)

HP can be done thro'
(a) Appl/DB cognizant and
(b) clusters

(a) Appl/DB cognizant

- Partition the application (application is cognizant
of the partitions) either with geographic boundaries,
some other range values meaningful to the application
that is being partitioned.

(b) clusters

- done thro' clusters with application not aware of partitions.
This will not scale for some applications. Imagine that
the order number is generated. Now all the clients in all
nodes will try to get the same lock on the order table --
even if it is short duration and we get the lock, the amt
of msg being passed to maintain cache coherency will be
high.. According to Amdahl's law, if 1% of problem fails to
parallelize, then no matter how much parallelism, clustering
is available for the rest, the problem can never be solved

That is why Oracle has recommended the following page 63
of their P & T Guide for RAC that says.

"To reduce Real Application Clusters overhead, each instance in a
cluster should ideally perform most DML operations against a set of
database tables that is not frequently modified by other instances."

Page 63
Oracle9 i Real Application Clusters
Deployment and Performance
Release 1 (9.0.1)
July 2001
Part No. A89870-02
http://download-west.oracle.com/otndoc/oracle9i/901_doc/rac.901/a89870.pdf


Vertical partitioning
- Single machine scaling up thro' # CPUs, memory, disk etc.
This is like going from 8 way-> 16 way -> 32 way on the same
box or thro' NUMA box

ORAC is Oracle Real Application Clusters

Sethu
PS: I never got any feedback on this topic. I would like to
get some feedback on what others think in this
email alias.

Thanks,
Sethu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:32:38 +1300

% 4) Analysts predict that only 10% of Oracle community will
% use ORAC by year 2006. (that is 4 years from now).

Sorry to single out this point when the whole point of your post was
something else entirely, but can you give some references on this? I'd find
it very interesting reading, personally.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:02:50 -0800

Look at the following URL

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011121S0021

Sethu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Nick Barbalich <nick.barbalich@medicals.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:59:50 +1300

Dear Sethu

So in theory, you may be able to "port" a application which runs on a large
32 cpu server to run on (say) 8 separate-but-linked 4 way CPU boxes as long
as the application is cognizant of the partitions and you use ASE 12.5
Distributed Transactions Management Features to coordinate the transactions.


I assume this would work BUT,

1. you would have to manage 8 servers verses one 32 cpu server.
2. writing the code would be more involved
3. management of recovery and synching the time on eight servers would
be more difficult.
4. the trade-off is "ease of management" verses "lower hardware costs".


Nick Barbalich
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 05:31:32 -0800

Hi Nick,

I agree with your points. However there are several trade-offs.

If you want high scalability you have to go with the horizontal
partition. There the trade-off is between "throughput/performance"
and "ease of mgmt" and "lower hardware costs".

Sybase systems are easier to manage than Oracle systems. Sybase
can do better with managing systems thro' wizards/gui etc.

Regarding point #3, if your system is horizontally partitioned say
by Service Level Agreements (Gold Card Members vs. Platinum Card Members vs.
Titanium Card members). The following are the advantages in this setup.

1) You can setup HA only for Titanium card members
(as a privilege to the high end credit card user )
You can use the Gold Card members server as the HA for Tit. card members

2) If gold card member server is down, only the gold card members services
are down.

On the contrary if you are using shared disk clusters, you need a real fast
interconnect -- otherwise the interconnect can become the bottleneck.
To get good perf. you need myrinet kind of interconnect with shared disk.

Cheers,
sethu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
Author: Michael Peppler <mpeppler@peppler.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:20:16 -0800

One way I've seen it done is via an ad-hoc OpenServer that serves as
both a switching and a connection pool system, and which directs
requests based on some of the parameters.

Another way to do this is to separate your data into vertical and
horizontal data. The vertical data needs can be easily partitioned
(i.e. one row in the vertical data section doesn't need access to rows
in the vertical data that aren't on this server) while the horizontal
data needs to be the same on all the boxes. You then use replication
to keep the horizontal data in sync.

It's non trivial, of course, but should be fairly scalable. For a
large web site, for example, it would also have the advantage of only
requiring shutting down service for a subsection of the site if one of
the data servers is down (maintenance, etc.)

Michael

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Linux DBMS traditional.jpg
Linux DBMS new.jpg

Stefan Goebel Posted on 2002-04-10 10:48:32.0Z
From: "Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:48:32 +0200
Lines: 428
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.159.143.62
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:801 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:150
Article PK: 84637

Hi Russ !

We just upgraded our Compaq Server and now have 4 CPUs (Xeon, 700 Mhz, 2 MB
Cache) - running on Linux (Red Hat 7.0). I had little expectations, thought
we'll gain 50% - maybe. But ASE REALLY scales FANTASTIC : performance and
throughput increased by more than 100% !
If Linux once is ready to scale up to 8 CPUs (and it will, no doubt about
that), I'm convinced you are almost near to your 10way HP or SUN box you
mentioned. As many discussions (not in this newsgroup only) have proven, a
cluster solution is of almost no help in an OLTP environment - mainly
because of the locking contention/management overhead. What I want to say:
I'm really not concerned about the missing clustering feature of ASE.

Anyway, your main point is the costs, if I got you right. What I'm really
afraid about is the Internet Access License of ASE in the future. A sales
person told me that the workplace license will vanish ! Now, for a small
business this really would be an enormeous increase ( ~30.000 EUR per CPU) !
He also said, that Sybase "thinks" about a "small business" license - some
features of ASE (like HA for example) would be missing then. Hmm, I really
hope that Sybase is aware of the following fact : The Internet does not
change "everything", but surely it changes the need for hardware power -
even for a small company ! You definitely need more CPUs (and other
recources of course, but they don't count with regard to the license cost)
in an environment where the number of users can suddenly explode and where
you need your server be running 24x7.

What I don't understand is : Sybase offered (and still does) 11.0.3. for
FREE (on Linux) which is a GREAT DEAL ! And now they plan to move towards
the enterprise business ONLY ! A shop that can afford a 10way HP box really
doesn't bother with the license cost, don't you think ? But using a 4 CPU
Intel system with 3 GB ram, 40 GB Raid 5 for about 60.000 EUR, chosing an os
like Linux for some hundred bucks and then paying ~120.000 EUR for a pure
RDBMS (so not counting the costs for the application on top of the database)
really is a bit disproportional !

Another example : Application service provider (like we are) support several
small customers, so it's easy and cheap to have them "all" (ok, let's say 10
of them) running on ONE ASE server (2way Intel-Linux-box) with a database
for each customer. No problem if you use 11.0.3... *g*. But if this provider
thinks about switching to 12.5, he suddenly has to pay... 10 IAL (!) - no
chance ! Why doesn't Sybase offer some kind of "unlimited" license - instead
of this "per CPU nonsense..." !!!??

Don't get me wrong, Sybase, I'm not demanding 12.5 for nothing. I know, that
this product is worth a lot, but as I said, with regards to small businesses
your pricing model is disproportional.

Thanks for supporting and listening to these newsgroups, Sybase !


Stefan Goebel

dbap GmbH
http://www.dbap.de



"Russ Wheaton" <russman@wheatonworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com...

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Russ Wheaton
> To: ase-linux-list@isug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:08 PM
> Subject: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
>
>
> Sethu, Thx for the info, but I am still hungry for more.
>
> Basically everyone, I am thinking about the following:
>
> ASE on LINUX
> 5 2way servers replacing 1 10way HP or SUN box.
> The cost justification is there (that's an understatement) for this type
of
> move, but what of the software. Near and dear to my heart, what about the
> ASE software?
>
> Here is the traditional view: Linux DBMS traditional.jpg
>
> Here is what I am sure folks are thinking about:
>
> Linux DBMS new.jpg
>
> I'm not proposing that either of these linux approaches are correct, or
even
> they way we (as a community) would go, I'm just VISIOing out loud.
>
> So what are we into?
> 1) Do we need to have a clustered physical storage solution?
> 2) Is the abstraction layer in front of or behind (as I've depicted)
client
> lib? In other words, is it something we would look to Sybase for, or
> something we may as well belly up to the bar to do for ourselves?
> 3) In drawing the pictures I've drawn, do I necessarily have to awaken
the
> MPP incubus?
> 4) Is this type of approach the one that Sybase will recommend against
> until their dyeing breath? Or is it coming whether we want it to or not?
> 5) Can I do something like this with minimal impact on my application
> developers? And how much should I lean on the dbms vendor to help me
> achieve that goal?
> 6) Do I need to drop the dosage on my prescription medication?
>
> Russ Wheaton
>
> --------------
>
>
> Here is what I posted to the news group:
> ================
> Companies are inevitably looking at more cost effective HW solutions - AKA
> Intel based LINUX serves.
>
> If I am in the traditional land of big business data servers, I am used to
> dealing with 10+CPU sun / hp machines for my more heavy workload database
> apps.
>
> Now switch me to LINUX - 2CPU based Intel machines.
>
> Most likely I just need to be directed to the information, but here is my
> question:
>
> Without adding a routing layer to my application (or other costly things
> that give my programmers bad dreams), is Sybase (ASE) keeping up with the
> industry desire to run the same db app on FIVE 2way LINUX servers vs ONE
> 10way sun/hp box?
>
> I think Sybase had better be. If they're not, I have some ideas. If they
> are I want to review the white paper / product doc / engineering note /
bar
> napkin that describes the proposed architecture.
>
> Russ Wheaton
> ===================
>
>
>
>
> Sethu replied with:
>
> First off, In our 3 year roadmap, we have plans to support Linux blades.
>
> There was limited discussion in the sybase linux isug email alias list.
> This is what I answered and I'm also attaching some of the following
emails
> that came thro'.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------
> subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
> Organization: Sybase, Inc.
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:51:18 -0800
>
> First off, currently, ASE cannot be used in a clustered environment for
> scalability. However it can be used for Availability. However, I want to
> add some of my comments on using Clusters for Scalability.
>
> A disclaimer before I start.. This is IMHO.
>
> I strongly believe clusters are good for read-only situations.
> They are not at all good for OLTP.
>
> 1) If you consider shared disk, the locking contention (which Oracle
> claim that they have solved it), will soon show up within 3-4 nodes.
>
> Oracle did a benchmark with Compaq Trucluster GS320 (32-way)
> 8-Quad system that showed only 5 percent better performance
> number (officially published TPCC number) than a 24-way
> IBM S85 number.
>
> Compared to the shared disk, we have seen true SMP (Starfire,
> superdome) have given 10-30 times scaling comparing
> a single CPU system and the largest system on the same hardware.
>
> 2) The GS320 along with the interconnect cost ton of money. Plus you
> need multi-ported disks. As far as I know these multi-ported disks
> cannot scale more than 4 nodes.
>
> 3) If you consider shared nothing (which we will eventually implement in
> ASE),
>
> unless the user does some kind of load balancing, the function
shipping
> to the other node and doing the update (for short burst transactions)
> far overweigh the scalability improvements one will get.
>
> 4) Analysts predict that only 10% of Oracle community will
> use ORAC by year 2006. (that is 4 years from now).
>
> My philosophy is
>
> 1) If possible do horizontal partitioning and configure it for
> availability
> cluster pair. You'll get better scalability and better
availability
> for OLTP
> applications.
>
> 2) If horizontal partitioning is not possible do vertical partitioning
> (more
> CPU, faster CPU, more memory all will help to scale)
>
> Systems like Beowulf are very good doing heavy-duty read-only number
> crunching
>
> jobs. The challenge using Beowulf for databases is that, database
typically
> involve lots of I/O. Anytime you do I/O to a single client, the client
> eventually
> becomes bottleneck. Some solution there would be make our OpenClient
> cognizant of database schema and clustered nodes and fire off queries
> in parallel using parallel connections at the client side. This is what
> MPP did. The drawback with MPP was that knowledge of client side caching
> and client side parallelism was not in the OpenClient but was done in
> the ControlServer (OpenServer based).
>
> As I said this is MHO.
>
> Thanks,
> Sethu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Nick Barbalich <nick.barbalich@medicals.co.nz>
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:56:52 +1300
>
> Dear Sethu
>
> Could you clarify the following terms in your reply:
> 1. horizontal partitioning
> 2. vertical partitioning
> 3 ORAC
>
> thanks
> Nick Barbalich
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
> Organization: Sybase, Inc.
> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:15:53 -0800
>
> Horizontal Partitioning (HP)
>
> HP can be done thro'
> (a) Appl/DB cognizant and
> (b) clusters
>
> (a) Appl/DB cognizant
>
> - Partition the application (application is cognizant
> of the partitions) either with geographic boundaries,
> some other range values meaningful to the application
> that is being partitioned.
>
> (b) clusters
>
> - done thro' clusters with application not aware of partitions.
> This will not scale for some applications. Imagine that
> the order number is generated. Now all the clients in all
> nodes will try to get the same lock on the order table --
> even if it is short duration and we get the lock, the amt
> of msg being passed to maintain cache coherency will be
> high.. According to Amdahl's law, if 1% of problem fails to
> parallelize, then no matter how much parallelism, clustering
> is available for the rest, the problem can never be solved
>
> That is why Oracle has recommended the following page 63
> of their P & T Guide for RAC that says.
>
> "To reduce Real Application Clusters overhead, each instance in a
> cluster should ideally perform most DML operations against a set of
> database tables that is not frequently modified by other instances."
>
> Page 63
> Oracle9 i Real Application Clusters
> Deployment and Performance
> Release 1 (9.0.1)
> July 2001
> Part No. A89870-02
> http://download-west.oracle.com/otndoc/oracle9i/901_doc/rac.901/a89870.pdf
>
>
> Vertical partitioning
> - Single machine scaling up thro' # CPUs, memory, disk etc.
> This is like going from 8 way-> 16 way -> 32 way on the same
> box or thro' NUMA box
>
> ORAC is Oracle Real Application Clusters
>
> Sethu
> PS: I never got any feedback on this topic. I would like to
> get some feedback on what others think in this
> email alias.
>
> Thanks,
> Sethu
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:32:38 +1300
>
> % 4) Analysts predict that only 10% of Oracle community will
> % use ORAC by year 2006. (that is 4 years from now).
>
> Sorry to single out this point when the whole point of your post was
> something else entirely, but can you give some references on this? I'd
find
> it very interesting reading, personally.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
> Organization: Sybase, Inc.
> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:02:50 -0800
>
> Look at the following URL
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011121S0021
>
> Sethu
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Nick Barbalich <nick.barbalich@medicals.co.nz>
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:59:50 +1300
>
> Dear Sethu
>
> So in theory, you may be able to "port" a application which runs on a
large
> 32 cpu server to run on (say) 8 separate-but-linked 4 way CPU boxes as
long
> as the application is cognizant of the partitions and you use ASE 12.5
> Distributed Transactions Management Features to coordinate the
transactions.
>
>
> I assume this would work BUT,
>
> 1. you would have to manage 8 servers verses one 32 cpu server.
> 2. writing the code would be more involved
> 3. management of recovery and synching the time on eight servers
would
> be more difficult.
> 4. the trade-off is "ease of management" verses "lower hardware
costs".
>
>
> Nick Barbalich
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---
>
> Subject: Re: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Sethu <sethu@sybase.com>
> Organization: Sybase, Inc.
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 05:31:32 -0800
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I agree with your points. However there are several trade-offs.
>
> If you want high scalability you have to go with the horizontal
> partition. There the trade-off is between "throughput/performance"
> and "ease of mgmt" and "lower hardware costs".
>
> Sybase systems are easier to manage than Oracle systems. Sybase
> can do better with managing systems thro' wizards/gui etc.
>
> Regarding point #3, if your system is horizontally partitioned say
> by Service Level Agreements (Gold Card Members vs. Platinum Card Members
vs.
> Titanium Card members). The following are the advantages in this setup.
>
> 1) You can setup HA only for Titanium card members
> (as a privilege to the high end credit card user )
> You can use the Gold Card members server as the HA for Tit. card
members
>
> 2) If gold card member server is down, only the gold card members services
> are down.
>
> On the contrary if you are using shared disk clusters, you need a real
fast
> interconnect -- otherwise the interconnect can become the bottleneck.
> To get good perf. you need myrinet kind of interconnect with shared disk.
>
> Cheers,
> sethu
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Subject: RE: Using clustering with Sybase
> Author: Michael Peppler <mpeppler@peppler.org>
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:20:16 -0800
>
> One way I've seen it done is via an ad-hoc OpenServer that serves as
> both a switching and a connection pool system, and which directs
> requests based on some of the parameters.
>
> Another way to do this is to separate your data into vertical and
> horizontal data. The vertical data needs can be easily partitioned
> (i.e. one row in the vertical data section doesn't need access to rows
> in the vertical data that aren't on this server) while the horizontal
> data needs to be the same on all the boxes. You then use replication
> to keep the horizontal data in sync.
>
> It's non trivial, of course, but should be fairly scalable. For a
> large web site, for example, it would also have the advantage of only
> requiring shutting down service for a subsection of the site if one of
> the data servers is down (maintenance, etc.)
>
> Michael
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Mike Harrold Posted on 2002-04-16 14:09:28.0Z
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001)
From: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Originator: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Message-ID: <wOSMSBV5BHA.258@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:09:28 -0400
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.core.com 169.207.1.89
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:786 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:142
Article PK: 84624

In article <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>,

Stefan Goebel <s.goebel@dbap.de> wrote:
>
>What I don't understand is : Sybase offered (and still does) 11.0.3. for
>FREE (on Linux) which is a GREAT DEAL ! And now they plan to move towards
>the enterprise business ONLY ! A shop that can afford a 10way HP box really
>doesn't bother with the license cost, don't you think ? But using a 4 CPU
>Intel system with 3 GB ram, 40 GB Raid 5 for about 60.000 EUR, chosing an os
>like Linux for some hundred bucks and then paying ~120.000 EUR for a pure
>RDBMS (so not counting the costs for the application on top of the database)
>really is a bit disproportional !

You must be new to the Enterprise software world. This really isn't as
disproportionate as you might think. And if you think Sybase's price is
high, take a look at the competitors out there who charge twice as much!

/Mike


Stefan Goebel Posted on 2002-04-16 14:43:53.0Z
From: "Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <wOSMSBV5BHA.258@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:43:53 +0200
Lines: 28
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <hzfpNWV5BHA.258@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.159.143.62
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:785 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:141
Article PK: 84622


> In article <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>,
> Stefan Goebel <s.goebel@dbap.de> wrote:
> >
> >What I don't understand is : Sybase offered (and still does) 11.0.3. for
> >FREE (on Linux) which is a GREAT DEAL ! And now they plan to move towards
> >the enterprise business ONLY ! A shop that can afford a 10way HP box
really
> >doesn't bother with the license cost, don't you think ? But using a 4 CPU
> >Intel system with 3 GB ram, 40 GB Raid 5 for about 60.000 EUR, chosing an
os
> >like Linux for some hundred bucks and then paying ~120.000 EUR for a pure
> >RDBMS (so not counting the costs for the application on top of the
database)
> >really is a bit disproportional !
>
> You must be new to the Enterprise software world. This really isn't as
> disproportionate as you might think. And if you think Sybase's price is
> high, take a look at the competitors out there who charge twice as much!
>
> /Mike

Seems to me that you didn't read carefully... But anyway, I'm well aware of
what Oracle or IBM pricing is about... and by the way : this doesn't mean
you have to accept it !

Stefan.


Michael Peppler Posted on 2002-04-16 16:49:55.0Z
From: Michael Peppler <mpeppler@peppler.org>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:49:55 -0700
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <wOSMSBV5BHA.258@forums.sybase.com> <hzfpNWV5BHA.258@forums.sybase.com>
User-Agent: Pan/0.11.2 (Unix)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Comment-To: "Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de>
Message-ID: <C0ROpfW5BHA.197@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.peppler.org 206.55.243.57
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:784 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:140
Article PK: 84621


On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:43:53 -0700, Stefan Goebel wrote:

>> In article <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>, Stefan Goebel
>> <s.goebel@dbap.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >What I don't understand is : Sybase offered (and still does) 11.0.3.
>> >for FREE (on Linux) which is a GREAT DEAL ! And now they plan to move
>> >towards the enterprise business ONLY ! A shop that can afford a 10way
>> >HP box
> really
>> >doesn't bother with the license cost, don't you think ? But using a 4
>> >CPU Intel system with 3 GB ram, 40 GB Raid 5 for about 60.000 EUR,
>> >chosing an
> os
>> >like Linux for some hundred bucks and then paying ~120.000 EUR for a
>> >pure RDBMS (so not counting the costs for the application on top of
>> >the
> database)
>> >really is a bit disproportional !
>>
>> You must be new to the Enterprise software world. This really isn't as
>> disproportionate as you might think. And if you think Sybase's price is
>> high, take a look at the competitors out there who charge twice as
>> much!
>>
>> /Mike
>
> Seems to me that you didn't read carefully... But anyway, I'm well aware
> of what Oracle or IBM pricing is about... and by the way : this doesn't
> mean you have to accept it !

Feel free to vote with your feet :-)

However, keep in mind that for the software to keep on improving, for it
to be supported, for Sybase to continue existing, Sybase has to generate
revenue.

We've all seen what happened to all the .com companies that built their
business plans on some rather unverifiable assumptions.

Me I'd rather pay Sybase to be sure that I get decent support and
potentially new/better versions of the programs I use.

Not that I'm against free software (I use a lot of it, and I produce
some of it!)

Michael
--
Michael Peppler Data Migrations, Inc.
mpeppler@peppler.org *or* mpeppler@mbay.net
http://www.mbay.net/~mpeppler
International Sybase User Group: http://www.isug.com


Rob Verschoor Posted on 2002-04-10 20:35:36.0Z
Reply-To: "Rob Verschoor" <rob@DO.NOT.SPAM.sypron.nl>
From: "Rob Verschoor" <rob@DO.NOT.SPAM.sypron.nl>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:35:36 +0200
Lines: 85
Organization: Sypron B.V.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID: <KppiQ$M4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: f202102.upc-f.chello.nl 80.56.202.102
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:792 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:146
Article PK: 84629


"Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de> wrote in message
news:h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com...
> Hi Russ !
>
> We just upgraded our Compaq Server and now have 4 CPUs (Xeon, 700
Mhz, 2 MB
> Cache) - running on Linux (Red Hat 7.0). I had little expectations,
thought
> we'll gain 50% - maybe. But ASE REALLY scales FANTASTIC :
performance and
> throughput increased by more than 100% !
> If Linux once is ready to scale up to 8 CPUs (and it will, no doubt
about
> that), I'm convinced you are almost near to your 10way HP or SUN box
you
> mentioned. As many discussions (not in this newsgroup only) have
proven, a
> cluster solution is of almost no help in an OLTP environment -
mainly
> because of the locking contention/management overhead. What I want
to say:
> I'm really not concerned about the missing clustering feature of
ASE.
>
> Anyway, your main point is the costs, if I got you right. What I'm
really
> afraid about is the Internet Access License of ASE in the future. A
sales
> person told me that the workplace license will vanish ! Now, for a
small
> business this really would be an enormeous increase ( ~30.000 EUR
per CPU) !
> He also said, that Sybase "thinks" about a "small business"
license - some
> features of ASE (like HA for example) would be missing then. Hmm, I

really

Well, what about this: in the recently released 12.5.0.1, there seems
to be something called a "Small Business Edition", for which there is
a license key "ASE_SBE": this is mentioned in chapter 1 of the
document $SYBASE/docs/newfunc.pdf which is part of the 12.5.0.1
installation.
This "Small Business Edition" has functionality limitations: the docs
say there's a maximum of 256 users, 4 engines and no parallellism. I
don't know what a license for this "Small Business Edition" costs, but
my guess would be it would have a lower price tag (given the name and
the limitations).

Does anyone already have any experience with this ?

HTH,

Rob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Verschoor

Certified Sybase Professional DBA for ASE 12.0/11.5/11.0

Author of "The Complete Sybase ASE Quick Reference Guide"
Online orders accepted at http://www.sypron.nl/qr

email mailto:rob@*do*not*spam*sypron.nl
WWW http://www.sypron.nl
snail Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------------


HTH,

Rob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Verschoor

Certified Sybase Professional DBA for ASE 12.0/11.5/11.0

Author of "The Complete Sybase ASE Quick Reference Guide"
Online orders accepted at http://www.sypron.nl/qr

email mailto:rob@*do*not*spam*sypron.nl
WWW http://www.sypron.nl
snail Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------------


VEN Posted on 2002-07-27 04:41:24.0Z
From: Ven
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 00:41:24 -0400
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux
Subject: LINUX Eval Installation (ASE 12.5)
Message-ID: <E6CC3CC45E6715AE0019C33F85256C03.0071661485256B97@webforums>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <KppiQ$M4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com>
Lines: 20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!webforums.sybase.com!news
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:646
Article PK: 84488

HELP!!!

I have been trying to install Linux eval copy of ASE 12.5. They have not
sent the license certificate. When I finally got the license code from
internet download, it does not work.

When I enter,

lmgr

It prompt for either "ASE" or "ASE Demo". No option to select "ASE Eval".
WHen I entered ASE DEMO and entered my license details, it errors out
saying Demo file is missing.

Please help me. Am I doing anything wrong?

Ven


Stefan Goebel Posted on 2002-04-11 14:03:14.0Z
From: "Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <KppiQ$M4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:03:14 +0200
Lines: 46
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <MwJtQIW4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.159.143.62
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:790 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:145
Article PK: 84630

Hi Rob !

> Well, what about this: in the recently released 12.5.0.1, there seems
> to be something called a "Small Business Edition", for which there is
> a license key "ASE_SBE": this is mentioned in chapter 1 of the
> document $SYBASE/docs/newfunc.pdf which is part of the 12.5.0.1
> installation.

Ahh, this sounds promising !


> This "Small Business Edition" has functionality limitations: the docs
> say there's a maximum of 256 users, 4 engines and no parallellism. I
> don't know what a license for this "Small Business Edition" costs, but
> my guess would be it would have a lower price tag (given the name and
> the limitations).

4 engines and no parallellism really is acceptable for a small business. But
what does "256 users" mean ? 256 concurrent connections ? 256 logins ? But
either that or the other seems reasonable, too...

Thanks anyway for the info !

Regards, Stefan.


>
> Does anyone already have any experience with this ?
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rob Verschoor
>
> Certified Sybase Professional DBA for ASE 12.0/11.5/11.0
>
> Author of "The Complete Sybase ASE Quick Reference Guide"
> Online orders accepted at http://www.sypron.nl/qr
>
> email mailto:rob@*do*not*spam*sypron.nl
> WWW http://www.sypron.nl
> snail Sypron B.V., P.O.Box 10695, 2501HR Den Haag, The Netherlands
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael Peppler Posted on 2002-04-11 17:42:56.0Z
From: Michael Peppler <mpeppler@peppler.org>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:42:56 -0700
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <KppiQ$M4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com> <MwJtQIW4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
User-Agent: Pan/0.11.2 (Unix)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Comment-To: "Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de>
Message-ID: <vE382FY4BHA.284@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.peppler.org 206.55.243.57
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:787 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:143
Article PK: 84625


On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:03:14 -0700, Stefan Goebel wrote:

> 4 engines and no parallellism really is acceptable for a small business.
> But what does "256 users" mean ? 256 concurrent connections

I believe it's 256 connections, enforced by sp_configure.

Which should be plenty for most "small" businesses...

Michael
--
Michael Peppler Data Migrations, Inc.
mpeppler@peppler.org *or* mpeppler@mbay.net
http://www.mbay.net/~mpeppler
International Sybase User Group: http://www.isug.com


Jim Egan Posted on 2002-04-11 16:23:15.0Z
From: Jim Egan <dontspam.dbaguru@eganomics.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:23:15 -0600
Message-ID: <MPG.171f665bd0121f1098bd09@forums.sybase.com>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <KppiQ$M4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com> <MwJtQIW4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
Reply-To: eganjp@compuserve.com
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12-252-108-115.client.attbi.com 12.252.108.115
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:789 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:144
Article PK: 84627


s.goebel@dbap.de wrote...
> 4 engines and no parallellism really is acceptable for a small business. But
> what does "256 users" mean ? 256 concurrent connections ? 256 logins ? But
> either that or the other seems reasonable, too...
>

256 connections is my understanding.
--
Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
Senior Consultant
Sybase Professional Services


Jim Egan Posted on 2002-04-10 15:25:03.0Z
From: Jim Egan <dontspam.dbaguru@eganomics.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:25:03 -0600
Message-ID: <MPG.171e073f85b91b3498bcf7@forums.sybase.com>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
Reply-To: eganjp@compuserve.com
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12-252-108-115.client.attbi.com 12.252.108.115
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:797 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:149
Article PK: 84636


s.goebel@dbap.de wrote...
> Anyway, your main point is the costs, if I got you right. What I'm really
> afraid about is the Internet Access License of ASE in the future.

I could be wrong, but I think the IAL is going away. The change to per CPU pricing
eliminates the need for the IAL. Check with Sales for the final word on this. I'm just a
consultant so I may not be reading the price lists correctly.
--
Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
Senior Consultant
Sybase Professional Services


Stefan Goebel Posted on 2002-04-10 15:37:44.0Z
From: "Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <MPG.171e073f85b91b3498bcf7@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:37:44 +0200
Lines: 18
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <mF1iYYK4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.159.143.62
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:796 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:148
Article PK: 84633

Well, actually, the IAL is on a per CPU base !

> s.goebel@dbap.de wrote...
> > Anyway, your main point is the costs, if I got you right. What I'm
really
> > afraid about is the Internet Access License of ASE in the future.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think the IAL is going away. The change to per
CPU pricing
> eliminates the need for the IAL. Check with Sales for the final word on
this. I'm just a
> consultant so I may not be reading the price lists correctly.
> --
> Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
> Senior Consultant
> Sybase Professional Services


Matt Rogish Posted on 2002-04-10 17:03:38.0Z
From: "Matt Rogish" <matt@fanhome.com>
References: <gcmRj$$3BHA.298@forums.sybase.com> <h#m2x2H4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com> <MPG.171e073f85b91b3498bcf7@forums.sybase.com> <mF1iYYK4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: ASE on LINUX - way out discussion ...
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:03:38 -0400
Lines: 46
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <IYlGwKL4BHA.204@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.linux,sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip134-053-064-186.s64.muohio.edu 134.53.64.186
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.linux:794 sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:147
Article PK: 84631

Stefan,

We're in the same boat as you and if you search the archives for this forum
I did bring that point up and someone from Sybase replied with some
constructive thoughts from 'on high' re pricing.

From what I recall, they didn't say that IAL (which is what we use) is going
away, but they did say that they're always updating pricing to be relative
to box size and such because ASE cost us around X when the hardware to
support it was something like X / 6!!! In the internet world it exposes
relatively small companies to potentially very, very large loads. Company X
may only have 3 internal users but tens of thousands of internet users, and
so their current price structure really doesn't scale.

The way internet access licensing works (or worked) was that you paid per
cpu since you couldn't gustimate the number of users (e.g. per seat pricing
couldn't apply) so they said ok that'll be X dollars per cpu if you're under
a certain total megahertz level (workplace) or X * 2 if you're higher
(enterprise).

I would hope that per cpu would actually be a reduction in total price for
us IAL users. :)

--
Matt

"Stefan Goebel" <s.goebel@dbap.de> wrote in message
news:mF1iYYK4BHA.206@forums.sybase.com...
> Well, actually, the IAL is on a per CPU base !
> > s.goebel@dbap.de wrote...
> > > Anyway, your main point is the costs, if I got you right. What I'm
> really
> > > afraid about is the Internet Access License of ASE in the future.
> >
> > I could be wrong, but I think the IAL is going away. The change to per
> CPU pricing
> > eliminates the need for the IAL. Check with Sales for the final word on
> this. I'm just a
> > consultant so I may not be reading the price lists correctly.
> > --
> > Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
> > Senior Consultant
> > Sybase Professional Services