Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

CUPS Archive

Why is it that there is only support for PostgreSQL or Oracle?  I am testing Jabber in my environment in the hopes of replacing Lync.  One critical element is the archiving of text based messaging.  With Lync, it is very simple as it stores the data in Exchange.  As I attempt to set up Jabber, I am unable to make it work with Microsoft SQL and told by TAC that it is not supported.  

It seems to me that Cisco is getting in their own way in making this product usable.  Requiring further infrastructure when it's not needed negates any benefit of using a product.  As Cisco does not include an archiving solution, there needs to be support for any ODBA compliant database.

Everyone's tags (1)
4 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

I suggest you to submit this

I suggest you to submit this feedback via the partner community (assuming you're a partner), and/or via your SE/AM. You can also open a PER on this.

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate

www.cisco.com/go/pdi
VIP Super Bronze

Cisco, at least the CTG, has

Cisco, at least the CTG, has never provided categorical support for a protocol. On any given product that offers an integration with anything external - CCX, CUC, IM&P, etc. - they specify which external products and versions they explicitly developed for and tested with. If they didn't test for it, they don't support it.

Also, in the for what it's worth category, MS SQL and PostgreSQL are not identical database platforms. Talk to a DBA or Google; there are differences that would require Cisco to explicitly develop for MS SQL in addition to PostgreSQL. They chose two popular, Linux-based database platforms. Being upset that they didn't chose their primary competitor's database seems silly.

Requiring further infrastructure when it's not needed negates any benefit of using a product.

I'm not sure where else you expect Cisco to put this that wouldn't require "further infrastructure". Microsoft relies on Exchange as you said which is exactly that: a storage platform external to Lync. It's an unpredictable database size which will vary drastically depending on usage and retention period. Since the IM&P OVAs have fixed, small storage footprints it won't fit within the VM.

The only legitimate gripe here IMO is that Cisco doesn't provide an integrated management UI for the database (e.g. search, retention period management, etc). No one on this, or the partner, forums can get that done for you though. Talk to your Cisco AM and ask for a product enhancement request as Jamie suggested.

New Member

The "gripe" is that Cisco

The "gripe" is that Cisco continues to make it more difficult and expensive to use their solution vs. competing products.

The response "Cisco, at least the CTG, has never provided categorical support for a protocol. On any given product that offers an integration with anything external - CCX, CUC, IM&P, etc. - they specify which external products and versions they explicitly developed for and tested with. If they didn't test for it, they don't support it."

This is basically saying "We have always done it this way".  This is the worst reason there is to do or not do something.  Cisco has also always charged to license every little piece of their systems until Microsoft came along and offered things for free.  Now the Cisco bundles a great deal of product for a very good price.  Time to wake up and change how things are done.

The bottom line is that having to bring in the talent to manage an open source option or having to pay for Oracle licensing just to be able to use Jabber is not reasonable.  Microsoft SQL is the #1 used database out there.  Competition or not, the many, many customers that have a Cisco phone system almost certainly have SQL, but may very well not have Oracle or the ability to support open source software.  While I would prefer to not use anything Microsoft if I could help it, my personal feelings have nothing to do with being able to implement technology.  

If using SQL is such a bad thing for Cisco that they simply won't do it, make the product so it doesn't require any third party solution.  That's what the competition does and that's why so many customers use Lync.

 

 

 

"Being upset that they didn't

"Being upset that they didn't chose their primary competitor's database seems silly...."

Maybe, if Cisco sold their own database platform...........

100
Views
1
Helpful
4
Replies
CreatePlease to create content