Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

In article <38e1e1d4.5594429_at_news-server>, nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam (Nuno Souto) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:39:21 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Anyway enough
> >said you guys can think what you want but really you are only doing
> >some MS bashing.
>
> When they show they can release a product that runs exceedingly well
> across platforms, in ALL of them, they will have a good product. So
> far it only runs on one and it takes a small army and heaps of
> vaporware to make it perform in a fake environment.
>
> It would help if the database could interface well with a little bit
> more than only Ms products.
>
> Apple, IBM and many others tried that "bottled" stuff long ago. Didn't
> work. What makes you think it will work for Ms? Their high number of
> licenses, 95% of which is desktops running screen savers or home
> computers running Quake?
>
> Corporate stuff is very different. It will be a really, really mad IT
> manager that will tie him/herself to a proprietary platform with a
> use-by date of 1.5 years... That sort of stuff is long gone from the
> corporate world, Ms just hasn't realised it yet. Let them waste their
> R&D and marketing $$$, they got plenty to spend.
>
> BTW, have you ever had a BIG table clustered on an "int" column that
> suddenly runs out of steam? As in overflow of max int? Big job to
> fix, eh?
> In ORACLE it's a 2 second solution. But of course, ORACLE is the one
> of the "difficult" administration...
>
> That is just a VERY small example of the difference between
> "industrial strength" products and "marketing strength" ones.
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html
>

If im not mistaken altering a table like that would cause chaining which would make performance suffer. The optimal solution would be to rebuild the table. In my opionion that is a design flaw and a rebuild of a 2-10 of hours should be accetable. Of course renaming tables and rebuilding on the fly is the better way to go to have only 1 minute of 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 many bugs where they said next version and then the version gets delayed by nearly a year and forcing an upgrade! How about the fact from 7.2 to 7.3 Oracle changed some of their libraries so that you could not rebuild developer. Oracle support said it was not supported. After hacking the make file for a couple of hours the problem was fixed but what did Oracle do... nothing. Their support can be good if things are escalated properly. At one point I was looking at writing something to envoke some code to do address normilization. I was looking through packages and saw the pragma definitions to link in custom .o files when the initial make of Oracle was done. I got to third level support and the guy didnt know what pragma was in the language group! He said it cannot be done but the packages clearly have comments to .o's that are in the make file! So basically after several calls later to try and get a competent person which never happened I had to write a daemon listen on the pipes package. Sure it worked pretty good but wouldnt the better and easier solution be to link it in? Wouldnt you think someone at the third level in the language group would know this stuff? TAR.. SRX.. whats the diff. They both suck. If you give M$ enough money they give you a personal guy to call and put some fire under the support engineers. I assume for big companies Oracle might have the equiv. M$ is going to stop supporting 6.5 sometime this summer. Oracle is still supporting 6. That is where Oracle is MUCH better and is more enterprise friendly. The support may suck but at least its still there. Oracle is more difficult to admin but it is not difficult to do if you know how to do it. Every product has their plus and minuses thats why there is more than one product out there. I am at a company that may have one of the largest NT installations out there. NT if implemeted properly can give you the reliability desired. There is a box out of the hundreds that has the mystical blue screen every now and then but that is on a 200GB file server. Sun has the sames issues with netscape when stressed. Nothing is perfect. The issue is probably coming from the EMC disk. At some point you rely on third party stuff running in ring0 and puff your down.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Wed Mar 29 2000 - 00:00:00 CST