Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

 Ivana,  

 On the contrary, they are very useful, as long as you understand exactly what has and hasn't been achieved, you  read the full disclosure report on *exactly* what was used and done, and you can correlate that into what information  is relevant to your own real-life applications/systems/configs.  

 This particular config might be very useful when no access across partitions/servers is ever needed - but where you split it so 3% of  your customer base is on each machine. If a machine fails then 3% of the customer-base loses access, but  the other 97% are ok. (This assumes you actually need to split things up in the first place for  performance reasons which is less and less likely as single-server hardware performance increases)

> Thank you for your honest and straightforward answer.
>
> This basically means the TPC-C benchmark is not extremely useful.
>
> Although IBM's result tops the charts, the IBM system as used
> in the benchmark test may not be as reliable as some other vendor's
> system which may be further down the TPC-C chart.
>
> Unlike in TPC-C, in real life availability is important, so the
> position in the TPC-C chart is meaningless.

 Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd  (Please reply only to newsgroups)
 SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
 forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps (faqrtf.zip - L7 - SQL Public)

 or www.ntfaq.com/sql.html
 or www.sql-server.co.uk
 or www.mssqlserver.com/faq