IBM Db2 Database Reviews

The data resides in Db2, and the application is linked to Db2. My job is to pull the data through the Talend tool from Db2 and load it into Snowflake. At the Snowflake level, I handle the data for reporting purposes.

Db2 is an on-premises solution. I only use SQL over there. It's very easy to figure out how the data is present. I can check what the keys in the table are. I can easily export that to further work on it in Snowflake. For data modeling and other tasks, I have to pull the information from Db2.

The user interface is old and needs to be improved. It doesn't match the responsive and suggestion-rich UI of cloud solutions. New functions don't come to mind.

I have been working with Db2 for around one and a half years.

In terms of stability, I would rate it as seven out of ten.

Scalability is not always good in on-premises solutions. I would rate it five out of ten. The difficulty in scaling on-premises solutions is one reason we moved to the cloud.

I used Postman previously, which I worked on when I was involved in mobile development. Now, at IBM, I have switched to the data engineering stack.

The setup is not difficult; it's simple.

Overall, I rate Db2 as six out of ten. I can recommend it if someone wants to go to IBM stack. If someone is willing to adopt IBM's stack, then definitely they will be using IBM Db2.

It's not the Db2 LUW, which is Linux, Unix, Windows. It's the mainframe. It's the active-active, high availability environment that we need for the aggressive SLAs that we've got here in Saudi Arabia.

I like that its true active-active. For example, if there are two instances within a cluster, we can take one of them down and there's no failover or switch over. There's no primary and secondary, it's true active-active. We can take one side down and we can upgrade that with new maintenance or a new version, obviously testing coexistence beforehand, without impacting the business.

In a distributed world, you've got lots of different prerequisites you've got to be managing here. Not just the database - possibly the VMs that the database is in and the OS that the database is running on, Linux or Windows, as well as the storage.

I like its high availability. It's well supported by IBM. It's used by a lot of the larger business organizations globally within banking, finance, credit cards, insurance, retail, and government.

We're proving that it's got that high availability and robustness. We can prioritize the workloads that are coming into that database management system, using the features of the IBM z/OS environment. That way, if this transaction's coming in off the network that is in and out, they will be given priority over somebody doing a lengthy query that's coming in from the network that you would consider to have more batch-like tendencies. 

We like that it's using separate specialized CPU engines to manage the locking and the sharing of data via a coupling facility. This stays on the CPU that we would be licensed for. We call them specialized engines that you don't license. They're not paying your licensing costs. Whereas, for example, in other database management environments for high availability, they communicate between themselves over an IP network. The CPU would be higher for them. There's no special process or capability that allows taking that CPU and that communication between them. It has to, if you've got four nodes of a database management system, one of them would have to lock on a row in a table or whatever, it's going to have to propagate that information to the other three nodes on the mainframe side. It would just put it into what we call a coupling facility, and the other Db2 members or instances in the same cluster would be able to check that and see that, no, we can't update that yet, we'll have to wait.

There are lots of different things we use it for. We use it for data replication, which means that we've got an always-on alternate Sysplex cluster several thousand miles away that is propagating the data to that Db2 over there using replication services at the software level rather than, if you physically replicate data and the Db2 or the Oracle environment, physically using storage replication, you've in effect got a cloned copy of that environment. It's going to fire up at the remote site, looking for the network that's at the local site. There are lots of things you would have to do there to do that. Plus the RTO time to actually get that alternate Db2 at the DR side could be 40-45 minutes depending. Whereas we can do this capability and we call it always on, where the RTO is about a minute.

The good thing is that there are improvements coming with later function levels for the z/OS Db2. I'd like it if, with the operating system that we've got, z/OS, on the mainframe, it would allow us to refresh the hardware to run Linux dockers on the mainframe. This means this might give us opportunities for different ways of coming into the Db2 environment in the future. We just want a bit more integration with Linux. That said, we are already seeing Linux more readily available on the mainframe environment.

Not only have we got the premium operating systems on OS. We can run LPARs on the same mainframe footprint that is also supporting Linux. This is what has improved and made the mainframe environment more competitive.

We're also looking at AI for Db2 as well, and machine learning for the future. We know that AI has come out, that we're going to get that, and we're going to evaluate that product next year for Db2.

That said, I haven't got any real complaints about Db2 on the mainframe. For the most part, a lot of the problems we have nowadays are to do with communication between the various teams that you would class as stakeholders.

I've been working in a mainframe environment since 1991. I got involved in Db2, in the mid-nineties back in the UK. I've supported the database team regarding the system programming side of things, however, I used to be involved in it quite a lot operationally as an ops analyst lead. I've not actually worked with other database management systems on other platforms. However, some of my team support them. I occasionally have to look at these sites to understand the products and what their advantages and disadvantages are.

Sometimes it's how you go about system management processes within the environment, and not always the product itself. If, for example, we're going to put maintenance onto the Db2, we would do that in a sandbox environment first. We would test that the Db2 that we've put the maintenance on can exist or coexist in the same cluster as the ones we haven't put the maintenance on. That's the first thing.

We would test functionally and can regress that maintenance in case we introduce a defect, or it causes an application defect. Coexistence and regression are very important in the sandbox.

After we've signed that off, we would move it into the development environment where they've got all the different development services, integration, UAT, dev-test, pre-production, model production, et cetera. We would let the development workloads test the Db2 instance there and see that that's working. If that's okay, then we upgrade the other Db2 instance in the cluster. Finally, we put it into the production environment.

Therefore, you're not going to do a big thing. You're putting your maintenance in on 50% of the database environment so that you've got ability and capacity on the other side where you haven't made that change. And you've already proved coexistence and regression, should there be a defect identified through the application.

I like the way that Db2 allows us to do that. Certain DBMS environments, you have to upgrade them all to the same level. Some of them have to be patched quite regularly due to security. However, in the mainframe, it's not too bad.

When I first came here, they were putting the maintenance and the new release, they would do it across the whole cluster. Which, if we had a problem with some of the applications that are running in there, we would have to regress that, which would probably mean an outage. There are operational or system management processes that we've tuned and we've improved so that we're mitigating against any service disruption.

The way the IBM z/OS Db2 environment's designed does allow coexistence. It does allow us to upgrade 50% of it, or 25% of it, and leave it running alongside one that's back level - as long as we've proven our coexistence.

We've got a two-way Db2 cluster at the moment. With two members in that cluster, we could have up to 32 members in that cluster. It's got outward scalability as well.

It's got the ability to have up to 32 members within that data sharing group or that cluster. So you could run one of these on a separate Z server, Z mainframe, which would give you quite a lot of CPU capacity. I don't know whether there are any environments out there that would need or have that. Some of the world's largest banks - maybe in America or in Asia - might have a configuration like that. For us, we're across multiple processes, and we've got the ability, should we enable for cloud at a later date, to be in a position where we can just scale-out with little disruption, by just adding more LPARs with Db2 members in. We just have to make sure that we've got the processing capacity on the mainframe to support the additional workload.

IBM technical support is pretty good. We haven't had issues with them from the operating system, from the KICKS, from the MQ, from the Db2. When I compare it to, for example, Oracle tape, we don't get the same level of support there. There's a lot of collection of log information and things like that. We have to escalate that case or that incident to the second or third level within that organization. We tend to find that IBM, on the other hand, is pretty good with that. I can't comment on other areas other than experience with Oracle, which sometimes isn't that good.

The mainframe environment does not that often require that we have to set up another Db2. If you're creating a brand new Db2 cluster or data sharing group, then there is a bit of work in that.

The IBM manuals for this and our localized documentation assist the engineers and consultants in building a Db2. I don't consider any issues regarding a build of a Db2.

The mainframe environment from a security perspective is one of the key fundamental selling points of the mainframe environment. It is relatively secure assuming that the security people that administer the RackF database, the external security database, are actually configuring it right. Then we deploy role-based access controls. When they're doing this sort of activity database, people would have to liaise with other areas within the infrastructure and support to configure that Db2. Obviously, with any Db2 you need security permissions. They would need to discuss with the storage team how much disc space they're going to need and to discuss with the performance team and capacity team to make sure that they're going to profile that environment. They would need to discuss with the automation team to make sure that the Db2 is shut down when we need to shut the system down and that it's started up properly when the system's reloaded, or if it is in an unplanned activity, that we can restart it in light mode. Furthermore, the automation tool is monitoring that Db2 instance to make sure that it's healthy. Ultimately, there are lots of different teams that would be involved in this. 

For the most part, the setup is simple. If somebody wants a new database or schema, we could just quickly do that within that environment. If we need a brand new, separate Db2 environment, that would be more complicated, however, we have the procedures and processes in place for that.

We could have just one systems programmer doing that maintenance. That said, from my perspective, I engage a lot of the teams. Once we've put that maintenance into the development environment and we leave it for a week against one member and leave the other member back level, we would do full performance analysis to see that, with all the transactions that are running there, there's no additional CPU and there's no deterioration in response time and that the Db2 member itself is looking healthy, it's not having any resource shortages, there's no virtual memory or physical memory increases or deviations or anomalies.

We'd engage with the performance and capacity team. I recently engaged with the distributed team, for example, the middleware teams, to make sure that if anything is coming off the web through the web servers, they are aware of our change so that they can monitor and support us.

While it's one person that's doing the change, he might be working with a few junior engineers to do training. We tend to engage a lot of teams across the activity to make sure that everything looks okay and we're not impacting SLAs.

Furthermore, we have a 24 by seven operations team and they do all the operational side. You wouldn't get a Db2 systems programmer in production stopping and starting the Db2. That would be done by the operators.

In the 90s, there was a big problem with the IBM mainframe environment and there was a big push to move the middleware off the mainframe and put it on cheaper distributed hardware. What happened then was the workload was coming in over the network. This was what we called dynamic SQL coming into Db2 - which was a bit more resource-intensive to what it was with traditional legacy style workloads that were static SQL coming into the Db2 environment, that we could see the CPU on the mainframe.

In the old days, in the 90s and before that, we were charged quite expensive amounts for licensing the software on the full capacity of the mainframe they're running on.

Now, what they introduced mid-nineties/late-nineties was these specialized processes like a coupling facility. There was a Z integrated information process called a zip. This supported workloads coming in off the network from web servers coming into Db2, and we know that these workloads are traditionally resource-intensive. They're not as efficient as static SQL. This meant that in the old days, our licensing costs would shoot up as we would have to upgrade the mainframes and it would make it more expensive.

IBM introduced these specialized processes and the zip allows the workload to be dispatched on that specialized processor. Not all of it - maybe 40% to 50% of a transaction is eligible to be dispatched on a zip. This means that we don't need as much of the standard mainframe engines to support the business workload. Anything that's running on a zip, we don't have to pay licensing fees.

This was something that made the mainframe more competitive again. Furthermore, with the mainframe we have now we can have the forerunner to virtualization (VM), which is what I started on back in the early 90s, known now as ZVM. Having ZVM means that you can run virtual machines in that OS. It acts as a hypervisor. It runs virtual machines in that OS that could be separate Linux instances.

The flagship or premium operating system on the mainframe is z/OS. It used to be called MVS, multiple virtual storage. We're going to be able to evaluate next year within Linux Dockers, in them LPARs, alongside all other tasks that we've got running such as Db2, such as KICKS. It is going to make it really interesting in the future.

We have been comparing Oracle RAC against the z/OS Db2.

I tend to see that there's a lot of bias for people, depending on, for example, if they work for an Oracle database management system. In that case, you tend to get a lot of people that are biased towards the Oracle. Likewise, you'll get that with Db2 LUW or Db2 z/OS. They don't tend to know what the other environment can do. That said, looking at it from an infrastructure and system programming background, as my background is really system programming and storage and hardware infrastructure, it's trying to get a general view on what the database management system can offer for SLAs, high availability when it's patched, and how often it would have to be patched. I want to know, for example, if there are a lot more security defects and fixes with one environment as opposed to another so that we're not interrupting our hosted business in the environment when we're doing our maintenance and new releases of software.

I'm a partner of IBM. I used to be an IBM employee until August when I switched over to a partner company.

I'm not would say totally biased towards IBM. We do like to look at other vendors' hardware and software. For example, we use Oracle hardware on the mainframe environment for the tape. Oracle took over Sun which took over Storagetech, which is a mainframe and distributed tape solution. We do have a mixture of IBM and non-IBM software and hardware.

I'm a technical manager at the moment, and I'm supporting a team that's running Db2 across multiple sites within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

We are moving to the private cloud, however, at the moment, it's on-premise between multiple data centers dispersed within Saudi Arabia. They don't want to be looking at any cloud services from suppliers where they do not have control of the data. We are looking at maybe next year a private cloud infrastructure for the mainframe Sysplex environment.

I'd advise new users to make sure they know what you're doing. Don't guess. There's a lot of people working out there in IT that like to tell people that they know what they're doing. From my experience, they don't know what they're doing, and they can make a complete mess of it. I see it a lot over here in the Middle East. They need to be aware of what they're doing. They need to be following proper procedures and processes.

When they're upgrading to the production environment, they should be raising a high severity ticket with the supplier. For example, if we're changing the version of Db2 in our production environment on 50%, or one member, I would inform the team to raise a high severity ticket so that we've got IBM support on hand should we encounter any anomalies. I would be saying that the same to the Microsoft SQL team, to Db2 LUW, to Oracle, that sort of thing. That would mitigate risk.

They should also properly test it. They should make sure that they follow all the functional tests, which we call IVPs, which are scripted tests that you can run to prove that it looks okay. You should be engaging with the application team in non-production first to see that they're not having any problems with the application. You should try and see if there's a performance team or monitoring team that's able to look at the performance of it. You should be talking with the middleware team, like the webserver teams, the .NET, the KICKS, and making sure that all their processes are working with that database. And then you migrate it into production.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. The product, the support of the product, the high availability that it offers, the active-active, plus how we're managing it, has been great. We're having fun with it.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its compatibility with IBM Power Systems.

IBM Db2 Database is not a commodity product compatible with hyperscalers. IBM Db2 Database needs to work more on compatibility with other platforms.

Considering the competitors of IBM Db2 Database, I would say that the tool has to be made more cloud-friendly and should have agreements with AWS, Microsoft, or Google to run things on hyperscalers. In general, I would want the tool to have a bit more openings around cloud solutions rather than only being available on-premises.

I have been using IBM Db2 Database for a few years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

It doesn't really matter whether small companies or big companies use IBM Db2 Database. Whether to choose IBM Db2 Database or not depends on a customer's preferences.

If I consider the price of IBM Db2 Database, I would say there are cheaper products in the market.

Whether or not there is a requirement to pay additionally for maintenance or support apart from the standard licensing fees of the solution depends on the agreement you have with IBM.

When you look at IBM Db2 Database, you feel it is more of a vendor lock-in type of approach. IBM Db2 Database offers little performance difference or competitive advantage compared to Oracle SQL or other platforms.

The products recommended to my customers may vary and depend on certain agreements. There are a lot of products, like Oracle, Microsoft SQL, and many other cloud databases, making for a wide portfolio of products.

IBM Db2 Database is a very standard and IBM-centric solution, so you need to be familiar with all the aspects of the product since it is not really an open product, meaning you can't run it on everything. IBM Db2 Database only runs on specific systems. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I am currently using IBM Db2 for z/OS. It is used to manage a huge amount of structured business data and provides DB services for many different applications.

Its performance is great. In my case, half a million transactions per second are using the DB services of the Db2 mainframe. So, it provides a great ability to support logical units of work.

For every big organization or big site, such as a bank or a credit card company, the most important asset is data. An organization puts all its business data and manages it in Db2 because it trusts that Db2 will be able to provide all the necessary services, such as:

• Business continuation
• The ability to process a large amount of data
• The ability to maintain a large amount of data
• The ability to execute DB services in a fraction of a second

Its functionality and availability are valuable. Its availability is great. It is available 99.99% of the time. 

Its security is great, and there is also the ability to execute very complex SQL statements. It provides the developers the ability to get the functionality using great tools like SQL and many other additional features.

The management of Db2 should be simplified because there are not too many specialists in this area, and the learning curve of Db2 specialists is very long. After the courses, probably it takes one and a half or two years to get to the point when you are using the product properly in the production systems. So, the complexity is very high, and the most important thing is to simplify the management of the product, including self-maintenance. They should simplify the installation, management, and monitoring to simplify the product. It takes too long for a person to be a specialist in this product.

The price should also be adjusted a little bit. IBM is quite expensive with respect to the product.

I have been working with this solution for 34 years.

It is very stable.

It is absolutely scalable. It is hard to count the number of users. For example, in a bank, each and every customer of the bank uses the product. There are hundreds of thousands or, in my case, even millions of customers. There are also people who are not customers but access the website of the banks to look at something. Those people are not registered, but they're using the product as well. So, there could be millions of users. In the banks where I work, the business is growing. With the growth of the business, the number of users is also growing every year by a small percentage.

If Db2 is properly used, an organization can build a database with thousands of tables, and it can provide the exact information for the applications within a second. We have 500,000 transactions a second, and each of them needs to get some information from the database to perform a show, insert, or delete operation for different users. In the banking or finance domain, there are a large number of transactions. Even in a small country, there would be a large number of transactions every minute or seconds of the day. Db2 is capable of providing services for each and every transaction.

Currently, technical support is concentrated in IBM's main supporting facilities and laboratories. Years ago, each and every country had its own engineers who provided technical support, but today, it is concentrated in a few hands through the support centers of IBM, and their support is good.

Positive

Before Db2, we used IMS. It was years ago, and currently, in addition to Db2, the same organization is using Oracle, MSSQL, MySQL, and even NoSQL databases, such as MongoDB. During the past five years or so, the NoSQL databases are getting in as well. So, we are using a few RDBMSs and NoSQL databases as well in parallel.

When I compare IBM's mainframe Db2 for z/OS with other relational database management systems, this one wins against almost each and every other database in terms of abilities and performance. Optimizing the scales or optimizer for creating the access process is probably the best in the world. In many aspects, Db2 wins against almost each and every other RDBMS, including Oracle, Microsoft, MySQL, and NoSQL ones. However, in the area of complexity and maintenance, probably the others are better.

It is quite complex. It is not a simple installation. If the installation is done by a specialist, it takes a few hours.

It was implemented by our own in-house team. For deployment and maintenance, in a big organization, probably two DBAs are required to be on the safe side, in case one of them is on holiday or something like that. Two people are sufficient to maintain the product.

It is expensive. The price depends on the size of the machine on which you are installing the Db2 and the features you are using. It also depends on the country. IBM has different policies and different options for payment for this product. 

IBM Db2 manages a huge amount of structured business data and provides DB services for many different applications in banking, military, logistics, and other areas. Big organizations that are using IBM mainframe are using Db2 Database for providing the database services for various applications. Thousands of organizations in the world are using Db2 for managing their data—their most important asset. By using Db2, they can manage this huge amount of data by building an enterprise-wide data model, consisting of thousands of entities and tables. When built with a proper methodology, Db2 is a great asset for each and every organization.

IBM mainframe Db2 for z/OS would probably be the best platform if you need a database that is not limited to one specific area and can provide you with the following:

• Different DB services
• Different functional and application areas
• Parallel processing abilities with a big amount of relational structured data

It will be difficult to find a better solution for such a business.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is very good.

The value and impact of using IBM Db2 Database lie in its essential role in storing data. The benefits include enhanced performance, reliability, and effective data management compared to other databases.

The most valuable feature of IBM Db2 Database is its ability to perform automatic self-management, reducing the need for manual tasks such as managing logs and folders.

One area where IBM Db2 Database could be improved is its Java development environment. Similar to those found in competitors like Oracle, there could be more user-friendly tools with features such as drag-and-drop functionality, visual basics, and low-code capabilities.

We have been using the IBM Db2 Database for ten years.

The platform is stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The primary concern is related to the cost implications when scaling with multiple nodes in a database. The associated costs increase when additional nodes are added, each requiring separate storage space. We have approximately four or five Db2 instances being used in the organization.

It is a scalable platform. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

I have used MySQL and Oracle in my previous environments. We switched to IBM Db2 Database for auto-management features and reduced manual intervention.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have to install and register. The deployment process includes downloading the software from the vendor's website, having a customer account, copying the downloaded file to the machine, and executing the installation. It takes five to ten days to complete. We have around 50 executives working in the database administration team.

We implemented the product in-house.

We purchase the product's yearly license. Later, we have to pay support and license renewal fees. Its pricing is comparable to other database solutions such as Oracle and MySQL. If you choose to buy IBM Power Systems, there may be opportunities to receive Db2 licenses at a lower cost or even free of charge. However, if the installation is on servers other than open Power servers, standard licensing fees apply, similar to those of other database solutions.

The application has analytical tools to support day-to-day management and analytics needs. It is convenient to meet business needs objects.

Regarding integration with other tools and systems, Db2 can be integrated with comprehensive banking solutions involving various teams, including CVS, analytics, and importing teams.

As for recommendations for those considering Db2, it can effectively impact performance. If an organization predominantly uses Db2, individuals are more likely to choose Db2. However, there is a challenge related to training resources for Db2, which may be less readily available or focused on compared to other platforms like Oracle.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We're using the solution for an e-commerce project. 

It has a HADR availability, and we have a TSA as well. Whenever the primary database goes down, automatically, the primary database will be moved to standby. There will be minimum downtime in the case of a HADR setup, and it provides great performance. 

Db2 is coming on Kubernetes as well. Once you start using that, everything will be good. I'm currently learning Kubernetes as well.

The solution can scale.

It is stable. 

We need some time to improve the performance. We have to perform a weekly REORG, or else RUNSTATS for the databases.

In Oracle's 19.1 version, there are many ways to automate things. However, in the case of Db2, we have less scope. As of now, my understanding is they have a separate tool called Pacemaker. It's similar to the HADR, TSA, which is Tivoli System Automation. 

The initial setup is difficult. 

In terms of OS-level information, we won't be able to capture database entries. There are bugs. If the bugs are fixed in that, it'll be easier. Whenever there is an OS-level error or the logs are attached to the database, we have to reach out to the OS team to get the information. 

I've been using the solution for the last ten or more years. 

This is a stable product. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We're currently using the solution for multiple projects. We have more than 100 people on the solution. 

It's very scalable. You can size it down or up. 

If we need to, we can contact IBM and get assistance. They have been okay for the most part.

Neutral

I'm also familiar with Oracle solutions. Oracle is more expensive.

It's hard to set up the solution. The setup could be easier in Db2. However, we have to work with the AX engineers to set up the Db2 file system. For that, we have to install the Db2 binaries, and we have to create the instance and create the databases. It takes around 30 to 45 minutes to deploy. That's pretty fast, at least.

We can handle the setup, for the most part, our own way, in-house. 

While the solution is less expensive compared to Oracle, it is still pretty expensive. 

We're an IBM customer. We're using it in a Windows environment. 

The reason to use Db2 depends upon the application team. Basically, we have the Db2 running in an older version as well. However, whenever we check with the application team, they don't want to upgrade since their applications also need to be supported. 

If a person is using the solution for the first time, they need to learn the architecture of Db2 and how Db2 works. After that, they would need an overview of the tables, the configurations, how the buffer pools, and how the data is fetching from the tables. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We are using IBM Db2 Database for our data center.

The past year has been much easier and has required minimal downtime. We can take a snapshot of the database and restore it quickly if needed, offering added convenience to our organization.

The most valuable feature of the IBM Db2 Database is the ease of use, and the ability to do query writing of any SQL statement and have an output.

IBM Db2 Database could improve in the steps it takes for upgrades. It is not an easy process. The process of upgrading the version is lengthy and requires a lot of time. To make it more efficient, I suggest implementing some automation on the solution side. This will greatly reduce the time required for the upgrade.

In the logging section, we can observe that we have two designated areas for secondary logs and logging. This is vastly different from the HANA database where lock identification and prompt action-taking are possible due to the instant notification feature. In our case, we have to manually create a query for the same result. However, in HANA, an alert ID is provided automatically. The same feature should be implemented here for the purpose of alerting.

I have been using IBM Db2 Database for approximately 10 years.

I rate the stability of the IBM Db2 Database a nine out of ten.

IBM Db2 Database is a widely used application with over 200 regular users.

I rate the scalability of the IBM Db2 Database a seven out of ten.

The support has always been helpful.

I rate the support from the IBM Db2 Database an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have previously used Oracle.

There are approximately 120 colleagues responsible for ensuring its smooth operation by providing support for the database.

If others are using a platform other than SAP to run their application, I would advise them to use this solution. If people are using IBM hardware, it would be better to implement this solution as the servers can be easily integrated. The IBM servers can easily integrate with any unit servers. This application runs on EX servers and I have noticed it works well with IBM Db2 Database and Linux. The AI functions run smoothly when used with IBM.

I rate IBM Db2 Database an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of Db2 Database is for online transactions.

The most valuable features are with the industrial side.

IBM Db2 Database could improve with better security.

I have been using IBM Db2 Database for three years.

The solution is very stable. In the past three years, we have only experienced one crash.

Db2 Database is scalable. One terabyte is sufficient and works perfectly to meet our needs.

We use IBM's technical support. It is a very good experience. 

We used and continue to use other RDBMS solutions other than Db2 Database. We use Microsoft Sequence Server, PostgreSQL and to a certain extent Oracle for different user systems. 

The initial setup of Db2 Database is straightforward. Any complexity is due to the seriousness of the case.

At first, deployment was done through a consultant, however, we now have the capability to deploy in-house.

Db2 Database is the best solution I have experienced with IBM. The return on investment has been very good.

We have a license for the Advanced Enterprise version of this solution.

I recommend IBM Db2 Database to anyone considering it as a solution for their organization.

Overall, I rate the product a 10 out of 10.