Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:33:08 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:

>>
>7.0 has true row level locking now.

Remains to be seen how solid or resilient it is. I'm reminded of the Ingres "row-locking" turning into table locking when you least expected. Usually when the engine was over-loaded. Right when you want it most. But hey! Did they rattle-on about it...

>Server 7.0 is a brand new engine with only compatibility left.

That to me spells untested, buggy, fragile software. Exactly what should be used to keep critical data. :-)

> MS
>hired some of the best engine builders in the field to make this one.
>They made it very scalable (as long as NT can scale that far.)
>

I'm reminded here of the utter crap Sybase used to put out about how "modern" their code was compared to ORACLE, yadda-yadda.

They basically picked the code of the old Britton-Lee database machine, renamed it, made it run on UNIX and called it a "modern" product. Didn't even bother changing the names or the language. Still have one of their initial company presentations where they clearly say they were all ex-Britton-Lee. No wonder they took AGES porting to VMS, darn thing was never written to be portable!

And for a long time, MS was sucked into that one too. Now they are using the same technique. Heck, they didn't even bother to change the low-level data management. It's still fixed block, based on "devices" and all that crap. "best engine builders" my ass!

The day MS can produce a database that can run equally well on NT or UNIX or a mainframe is the day they become relevant. Until then, it's just proprietary and locked-in. For all intents and purposes, behind the times and old-fashioned in its design strategy.

Tying a database to an OS exclusively is no demonstration of any good design technique whatsoever. It's making it dependent on the OS. Change the OS and the whole thing craps. Worse: once they start going that way, it's very difficult to introduce new stuff at the OS level without severely impacting the "tied-in" software. Result: the OS progress stales.

Note: not to say NT is bad. I think it's a darn good OS. It has many flaws, like any other. But overall, it's a very good effort. Particularly since NT4/SP4. Jury still out on 2000. However, for large and medium systems UNIX is so far ahead it's not even funny. If only MS would get rid of that moronic "registry" idea and the multiple re-boots every time anyone so much as clicks on an OK button...

But a good database is one that doesn't depend on intimate OS cooperation to run efficiently. That creates a heap of problems for both the OS and the database. As MS will find out.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Tue Apr 04 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT