Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

SQL Server 2000 is amazing and the Larry Ellison, and DB2 camp are scaried. SQL Server 2000 will also fully support XML with OpenXML. The T-SQL is going to allow you to write your own functions (and not just in VBScript). With the Application Center 2000 software clustering will be seemless. Oracle will choke and although I love IBM, DB2 better look out. Microsoft will provide SQL Server 2000, Biztalk Server, and Web Services. Can you say "developers paradise".

Chuck

Norris <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk> wrote in message news:8ja49v$1nnk$1_at_adenine.netfront.net...
> Do you mean only very large databases like Tandem, DB2, SQLServer can
 provide
> shared-nothing clustering technology?
>
>
> In comp.databases.ms-sqlserver Richard Waymire <rwaymir_at_ibm.net> wrote:
> > The data is partitioned across each node for key tables. If a node
 fails
> > any queries against the distributed partitioned view will fail (but
 NEVER
> > return incorrect results). Hence the recommendation to run each node in
 an
> > MSCS failover cluster.
 

> > Is shared-nothing clustering good for general systems? Ask just about
 every
> > VERY large system in a cluster (Tandem, DB2, etc.).
 

> > For an objective opinion on such matters, please read some relevant
 material
> > such as "In Search of Clusters" by Pfister from IBM Corp. You might
 also
> > look up some slides, etc. from Doctor Jim Gray
> > (http://research.microsoft.com/~gray/). Before you dismiss the site
 because
> > it's on Microsoft's web page, look at this credentials (including the
 Turing
> > award).
 

> > --
> > Richard Waymire, MCT, MCSE+I, MCSD, MCDBA
> > "Alexander Penev" <webmaster_at_penev.com> wrote in message
> > news:395554AC.9D413341_at_penev.com...
> >> What do you mean? Is the data partitioned along the 12 nodes or not?
 Will
 the
> >> whole system fail if one of the nodes fails? Are this issues good for a
 for a
> >> general purpose system or not? That's what Ellison says and i think
 it's
 just
> >> true. If you think it's not please explain us why. I would not read
 hundreds
> >> of c++ code without knowing what i'm looking for...
> >>
> >> "Michael D. Long" wrote:
> >>
> >> > And if you can read C++, you'll find some other goodies...
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Michael D. Long
> >> > http://extremedna.homestead.com
> >> >
> >> > "Alexander Penev" <webmaster_at_penev.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:39527E0C.E614B483_at_penev.com...
> >> > > Hi Steve,
> >> > > It's true that every company tries to blame the compatitor's
 product
 and
 to
> >> > > push theirs but THIS STATEMENTS of L. Ellison ARE JUST TRUE!!!! You
 can
 see it
> >> > > yourself:
> >> > >

 http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/Tpcc/compaq.8500.96p.00021702.fdr.pdf
> >> > >
> >> > > Just see the source code for creating the databases of the
 databases.......
> >> > >
> >> > > Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > All companies try to lie with statistics while being technically
 accurate.
> >> > > > That's why you have to read every company's benchmarks, their
 competitors'
> >> > > > benchmarks, and everyone's critiques of everyone else's
 benchmarks.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ivana Humpalot wrote in message ...
> >> > > > >X-No-Archive: yes
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >In the Analyst Q&A following Oracle's 4th Quarter Earnings
 Report,
> >> > > > >Larry Ellison made some very interesting remarks about
 Microsoft's
> >> > > > >recent SQL Server 2000 benchmark.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >If Ellison's comments are true then Microsoft is basically
> >> > > > >defrauding their customers with their benchmark.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >I have included below the transcript of his comments.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Is Larry Ellison lying or is Microsoft really defrauding their
> >> > > > >customers with their benchmark?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >You can listen to the audio here:
> >> > > > > http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/broadcast_oracle.htm
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Near the 1 hour mark, an analyst from Paine Webber asked a
 question
> >> > > > >about Microsoft SQL Server 2000. The following is Larry
 Ellison's
> >> > > > >response:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > In terms of microsoft.. we have no concerns at all. They
 still
> >> > > > > can't scale. They have this benchmark that they got out which
> >> > > > > works only in the laboratory.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The only problem with microsoft's benchmark is that it has a
> >> > > > > 3-hour mean time of failure. What they have done is to chop
 up
> >> > > > > the database in to 10 separate little databases, and if any
 one
> >> > > > > of those databases fail it brings down the entire system, or
> >> > > > > worse yet gives wrong results.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > So it is a completely bogus benchmark.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I mean, it meets the letter of the benchmark rules, however
 by
> >> > > > > their own statistics in terms of availability they have a
 very
> >> > > > > very short mean time of failure.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > No one seriously will ever use this kind of system.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > They have 10 separate computers each with 10% of the
 database.
> >> > > > > If you want an 11th computer you have to unload the entire
> >> > > > > database from the 10 computers and then put 9.1% of the
 database
> >> > > > > on the 11 computers. If one of the computers fail you lose
 10%
> >> > > > > of the database. And that means when you use your query.. you
> >> > > > > don't get the right answer back.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If you use 10 separate systems.. if you believe Microsoft's
> >> > > > > statistics on failure rates.. one failure every 30 days, you
 are
> >> > > > > going to get a major system outage or wrong results every 3
 days.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It is a preposterous benchmark.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.cooper.com.hk
Received on Sun Jun 25 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT