Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsl!sdo From: sdo@cbnewsl.att.com (scott.orshan) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Transaction Processing under Unix -- Summary of Replies Message-ID: <1990Jun1.202747.20759@cbnewsl.att.com> Date: 1 Jun 90 20:27:47 GMT References: <2121@uchdcc.uchile.cl> Sender: sdo@attunix.att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 156 >Some time ago, I asked the following question: > >> We are looking for examples of Unix-based transaction processing systems >> in actual operation. What kind of transaction processing monitors are >> being used? We have read about one from AT&T, called "Tuxedo". What has >> been the experience of people using it? > >Here is a summary of the replies I got: > We in the TUXEDO Development Organization of the UNIX Software Operation have been following this discussion of OLTP under Unix, and would like to throw our 2 cents in. We've pared down the included text as much as possible. Most of the comments have been favorable and accurate, but there are some misconceptions that should be cleared up. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: uunet!erbe.se!prc (Robert Claeson) > >I don't have any experience with it, but this is what I know: > >* Source license goes for ~$180,000. >* Consists of two parts -- System/T for terminal monitoring and > System/D for database management. >* System/D is a home-grown database system with indexed files and all sorts > of other facilities one need for transaction processing. >* It is possible to license only one of the parts. >* It is possible to modify an existing RDBMS and have it work with System/T. > I believe that Oracle is porting their database system to work with Tuxedo. > >Robert > System/T is not a Terminal Monitor. It is a Transaction Manager. Its two main functions are to implement the distributed Client/Server model and to enable and coordinate Distributed Transactions. This can be done on heterogeneous networks of UNIX machines. Client processes can be running front-ends on terminals (we supply a Forms package ourselves), and in that respect System/T can resemble a Terminal Monitor, but that is not its primary purpose. System/D is no more "home-grown" than any other DBMS. The TUXEDO System, in one form or another, has been in use for over 7 years both inside and outside of AT&T. The price quoted above is mildly accurate, with the note that Systems /T and /D are usually sold separately. (The above price is based on the combined cost of /T and /D.) As with any software license from USO (e.g., UNIX), there are lots of considerations that can only be answered by talking to someone here. There are phone numbers at the end of this article. Note that, as with the UNIX System, most people buy a binary version of our products at a considerably lower cost than the source. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: uunet!indetech.com!rec (Rick Cobb) > >Our company specializes in commercial OLTP systems for UNIX based on >Tuxedo System / T. We have several systems in development now, and one >production site coming up currently. > >The Tuxedo system has two components: System / T, which is the transaction >monitor and environment; and System / D, a CODASYL-like DBMS. Given the >commercial viability of network model DBMS's (none), the piece of Tuxedo >that's most interesting is System / T, usually pronouned "slash T", at least >around here. Yes, that's the correct pronunciation. ITI was one of our first outside licensees when they purchased Release 3.0 of TUXEDO. They developed a Toolkit on top of TUXEDO Release 3.0, and we believe they are going to make it available on Release 4.0. Release 4.0 of TUXEDO is the release that incorporates Networking and Distributed Transactions. We wouldn't say that the interest in network model DBMSs is "none", as evidenced by the widespread use of /D, and the fact that a large percentage of customers who buy /T also buy /D. > >[Deleted Stuff] > >I believe that separate transaction monitors, *particularly* System / >T, are the way that UNIX transaction environments need to go. The idea >that there will only be one (type of) resource manager in your network, >or used by an application, is silly -- the real world demands that you >be able to commit an EFT transaction to both an off-site EFT service >and your local database. It presupposes that you can work with more >than one DBMS. It assumes that you can live in a world that also has >CICS- or TMF- based transaction systems. These kinds of demands make >it important to separate the transaction monitor from the individual >DBMSs (and to as great an extent as possible, from the OS). > >While System / T can't quite do all that right now (in particular, the >CICS and TMF world is still a bit off, though we've done some >integration work there) it's the best hope we have so far. > We haven't kept it much of a secret that we are working on providing the capability of making service requests from a UNIX Client to a CICS Server. > >In addition, as System / T has been upgraded recently to Version 4.0, it >gained the ability to distribute services and clients on a network, but >lost some other capabilities which are *extremely* important to resource >managers. Those will be added back in as time goes on and the rest of the >X/Open DTP is implemented. > It's true that certain ways of using Release 3.0 were cleaned up in Release 4.0, and that made it harder to do certain things, but we are working on "clean" replacements for those features that fit in with the Distributed Model. These will be available in the very short term. >-- >____*_ Rick Cobb rcobb@indetech.uucp, sun!indetech!rcobb > >Well, thanks to all who answered. Judging by the number of "me too" messages >I received, there is quite a bit of interest in OLTP applications under >Unix. > >On the other hand, we are forced to be conservative (this is a project that >just can't fail), and from that point of view, it seems that Unix OLTP still >needs a year or two to mature. We'll have to disagree on that one. Many applications are finding UNIX to be just fine for OLTP, given the availability of the OLTP packages that can be purchased right now. > >Thanks again, > >Patricio Poblete >ppoblete@uchile.CL > > For more information, please contact one of the following people: Enzo Greco Glenn Rose 201-522-5173 201-522-6477 attunix!esg attunix!uso!grr esg@attunix.att.com grr@uso.att.com ================== Scott Orshan 201-522-5063 sdo@attunix.att.com