Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

From: Norris <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk>
Date: 2000/06/27
Message-ID: <8ja49v$1nnk$1@adenine.netfront.net>#1/1

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 Tue Jun 27 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT