March 18, 2009
Database implications if IBM acquires Sun
Reported or rumored merger discussions between IBM and Sun are generating huge amounts of discussion today (some links below). Here are some quick thoughts around the subject of how the IBM/Sun deal — if it happens — might affect the database management system industry.
- IBM is already serious about supporting multiple database management systems. DB2 on open systems is IBM’s flagship DBMS. But DB2 on mainframes and at least one flavor of Informix seem to be getting maintained and enhanced fairly seriously as well. And IBM has further DBMS products as well (e.g., DB/2 on the AS/400). There’s little reason to think IBM would orphan MySQL or any other DBMS product.
- IBM is very open-source-friendly. For a company that grew up for decades on proprietary software — and still is a huge software products vendor — IBM is very serious about open source. If you doubt that, I have two words for you: “Linux” and “Eclipse”.
- MySQL might finally get its industrial-strength act together. IBM is good at database management and good at open source. MySQL becoming a no-apologies transactional DBMS would obviously put pressure on Ingres, PostgreSQL, and EnterpriseDB, although there surely would be lots of happy talk about the open source DBMS market being validated, lifting all the vendors and so on. Also, a better MySQL could be bad news for Microsoft SQL Server too.
- Sun has a lot of DBMS partnerships right now. Obviously, Sun owns MySQL, and has partnerships with MySQL storage engine vendors such as Infobright and Kickfire. Sun also has a substantial partnership with Greenplum, and a Barneyesque* one with ParAccel. And of course Sun has strong working relationships with major database vendors such as Oracle and Sybase. What’s more, on a case-by-case basis, Sun may cooperate in the field with yet other DBMS sellers. E.g., I’ve confirmed at least one instance of a Sun sales rep recommending a Kognitio DBMS.
- IBM partners with outside DBMS vendors too. You’d think IBM’s gazillion DBMS product lines would be enough. But nooooo. I frequently hear rumblings of IBM’s hardware or services operations working with other DBMS products as well. (This is, of course, actually to their credit.)
- Short-term, there probably would be little effect on partnerships. Greenplum runs on Sun’s Thumper/Thor line of boxes. DB2 doesn’t, and certainly isn’t optimized for same. In the short term, to sell Thors, Sun would presumably continue to sell Greenplum.
- Longer-term, there could be a DBMS rationalization. DB2, Informix, MySQL + storage engines, and big independent vendors such as Oracle and Sybase would surely always get attention. That’s a lot. There might not be room for much mind share for many database products and vendors beyond that list.
*A Barney partnership is one in which two or more vendors get on stage and do a song and dance about how much they love each other, with little substance beyond that.
Related links
- Larry Dignan thinks the IBM/Sun deal is sensible and ripe to happen.
- Dana Gardner thinks otherwise.
- Matt Asay seems to agree that IBM understands the open source business.
- Before IBM acquired it, solidDB was scheduled to provide a serious MySQL transaction processing engine.
Categories: Actian and Ingres, Data warehousing, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Greenplum, IBM and DB2, Infobright, Kickfire, Kognitio, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Mid-range, MySQL, Open source, ParAccel, PostgreSQL, solidDB
Subscribe to our complete feed!
Comments
10 Responses to “Database implications if IBM acquires Sun”
Leave a Reply
IBM is the best in the Market!.. but great article, i have substribed your feed to my reader – Thanks!
Given IBM’s track record with acquired DBs. What would happen to MySQL?
The industry as a whole has a decent track record of upgrading acquired DBMS, and IBM is no exception.
More would be needed in the case of MySQL — but given its visibility, that’s not unrealistic.
Come to think of it. Open Office is SUN. MySQL is SUN. Why did they never put it together?
Maybe MySQL is here to stay, but I don’t see it as a commercially successful product, in case it ends up with IBM. It is just breadcrumbs compared to DB2 sales.
>> Maybe MySQL is here to stay, but I don’t see it as a commercially successful product, in case it ends up with IBM. It is just breadcrumbs compared to DB2 sales. <<
I disagree. Look at how much of the web is LAMP based and remember that L= Linux and M= MySQL. Wow, IBM would suddenly be in a very strong Internet position against Microsoft!
What I meant is commercially successful product. I don’t think the open source free version is at stake. I am wondering how IBM would “sell” it, as MySQL did.
MySQL + DB2 + Informix + IMS + Cloudscape + IBM SolidDB + Unidata + Universe + IMS …
Sounds like a ton of redundancy. How many database engineers, product managers, marketers, etc does it take to make a single database engine that supports the requirements of analytics, transactional and read mostly applications. I say it time for some product rationalization efforts to begin at IBM, especially if MySQL comes into play.
Well look at that, a MySQL storage engine for DB2 for i (DB2/400) http://solutions.mysql.com/engines/ibm_db2_storage_engine.html
Yet another angle for the acquisition of Sun by IBM.
[…] MySQL is apt to get decent, much as it would have under IBM. […]
[…] use and even define that term fairly frequently, so I decided to create a URL where I explain it once and for […]