Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!canisius!pavlov From: pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: status of Ingres Message-ID: <2987@canisius.UUCP> Date: 2 Nov 90 07:06:02 GMT References: Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208 Lines: 74 In article , hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: > I posted a couple of things to this group about 6 months ago that > reflected a set of serious problems we had with Ingres. .... > Thus I think it is only > fair to note that we've been using 6.3 in an undergraduate database > course this semester, and as far as I can tell the problems we saw > with early releases of 6 have been fixed. Our problems, on the other hand, have NOT gone away. And they include deadly serious ones (literally). > We were displeased enough that I was > considering moving to another database system. Our only alternative at this point appears to be a lawsuit. And we are moving in that direction. > We are still having various strange events, but these events seem to > be the problems you'd expect with students trying to use a product as > complex as Ingres when they have no database experience. The people reporting "strange events" on our systems (including myself) include a core that has worked with INGRES for five years, starting with version 2, on platforms spanning 80286-based PC's to RISC minis. > As far as I can tell, we have had no crashes of the servers.... We count ourselves lucky if we manage to survive the day with "only" one. > I'd like to publically thank the local office of RTI for their help in > working with the earlier and more problematic releases. We have had a series of "problem tickets", "bug reports", and endless promises from technical, administrative, and sales staff and executives who talked to us once and then disappeared. A lot of "I will get the support and technical people working together on this" nonsense. > What could be done by support, they did. We got a lot of words and promises. The latest we have been told is the time-honored "you are the only one we know of on this platform with these problems". While our sample size is admittedly small (one other site), we know that this is pure bull. > Our configuration is 30 Sun 3/50's and 3/80's with a 3/80 acting as a > server. The 3/80 has 16MB of memory and an HP 760 MBbyte SCSI disk > drive (of which we are using only half, in order to improve average > access time). .... We are (now) trying to keep INGRES afloat on a DEC 5000, acting as a server. It has 48 megs and a set of HP 760 MBbyte SCSI disks (of which we are only using half.... etc). We are also attempting to run it on a DEC 5810, a DEC 5400, and several DEC 3100's. We have experienced server crashes, corrupted tables, corrupted indices, disappearing committed transactions, and endless "nuisance" problems on every one of these machines. The state of INGRES 6 on our chosen platforms - DEC RISC-based machines - and the company's lack of accountability and rsponsibility for its product has, without exaggeration, has come close to destroying the credibility and worth of our organization. It has been kept afloat only because we have a core group of computing people who have worked a steady pace of 60 to 70-hour weeks for the past 8 months to keep us afloat. INGRES 6 has been and continues to be a nightmare for us. With all due respects to Charles Hedricks, whose name has been well-known to me for some years. greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny pavlov@stewart.fstrf.org