Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

In article <38e33591.7702568_at_news-server>, nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam (Nuno Souto) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:48:13 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >If im not mistaken altering a table like that would cause chaining
> >which would make performance suffer.
>
> Nope. Well, not in ORACLE. Dunno about sqlserver, I suspect they'd
> have the same problem. Exacerbated by the limitation to 2K pages.
>
> >The optimal solution would be to
> >rebuild the table.
>
> Only in sqlserver. In ORACLE it's most definitely not needed.
> If you are interested, I can explain to you offline exactly why.
>
> >down time but twice the space requirment is the 4x7 way to go. Yes MS
> >support sucks and Oracles support is not much better. I have run into
>
> Got no argument from me there.... ;-)
>
> >language group would know this stuff? TAR.. SRX.. whats the diff.
> >They both suck.
>
> Yeah, these guys still haven't learned when it comes to support it's
> not the name they give to the process, it's the people in it!
> Attitude to work is 50% of it, but you can't get the proper attitude
> when support jobs are given to kids at the Quake age.
>
> When I used to work for computer makers (a long,long time ago, in a
> galaxy far,far away), it was always the more experienced people around
> that ended in support. For a very good reason. Never had any
> complaints.
>
> Then the accountants and spin doctors came in and declared support a
> profit centre. It's never been the same since and I still have to
> hear a satisfied customer from this kind of approach. But what the
> heck, it's profitable so it must be good...
>
> > NT if implemeted properly can give
> >you the reliability desired.
>
> No argument from me again. My pont is that as things stand in this
> industry, proper implementation = proper people. And proper people =
> cost $$$. But that never gets added up to the TCO in Ms's figures.
> But heck, they are quick to point it out in others, with the "ORACLE
> is difficult to administer" bit. Therefore implying immediately it's
> costly to do so. Forgetting to mention NT-based solutions need
> equally competent people if they are to see the light of day.
>
> >Nothing is perfect. The issue is probably coming from the EMC disk.
>
> And EMC's although they can be very good, sometimes turn into a
> RPITA...
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html
>

SQL Server cannot chain in 7.0. The page size is now 8K. So how can you change a datatypes physical space requirement in Oracle without increasing the rowsize? Getting good people is the trick to most successful projects. So if the playing surface is level with that then I think that MS is cheaper when it comes to hardware and software and since it is easier to admin it MAY take fewer bodies for that piece. The hardware and software cost may be smaller depending if you can use the Enterprise licensing agreement aleardy established with a larger company. If that cost is already eaten then $400 bucks a server is pretty damn cheap plus hardware depending on the project and failover need can range from $35K to $200K. You can maybe toss in better disk if you already have the infrastructure inside of those cost ranges and do hot backups using bcv's. This is assuming only a 100GB or so disk capacity needed.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Thu Mar 30 2000 - 00:00:00 CST