Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54

    Unanswered: DB2 linked server in MS-SQL 2005

    I've started a thread regarding a DB2 linked server in MS-SQL 2005 in the MS-SQL forum.

    Since it is about equally likely that someone here in the DB2 camp might be able to contribute, I'd appreciate it if any interested parties here would join the discussion.

    Thanks!
    -PatP

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,516
    Provided Answers: 1
    Do you use MS or IBM ODBC driver for DB2?
    ---
    "It does not work" is not a valid problem statement.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    I'm using DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition, Version 8 (c) 2004.

    FWIW, some of the queries that actually failed at the client when run appear to have run on for 60-100 minutes on the host. They eventually invoked some of the WorkLoad Manager stored procedures (more than an hour after the query failed).

    My, what fun!

    -PatP

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,516
    Provided Answers: 1
    ---
    "It does not work" is not a valid problem statement.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    I thought that you might have found something wonderful, that somehow I might have missed applying FixPack 8 even though my notes showed that it had been applied. No such luck.

    Either I have another problem, or they fixed the problem in FixPack 6 then reintroduced it later.

    I'm still working on this one, but thanks for your effort!

    -PatP

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    I've got the combination of FixPack 14 and the MS-SQL OpenQuery() syntax working, which is good enough to get me by from a syntactic standpoint (it means that I need to rewrite the queries, but that is livable). It will be a few days before I know if this is tolerable based on zOS performance and resource utilization.

    I'd appreciate any additional comments that anyone can offer.

    -PatP

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •