Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

what about nr. 5 sun e6500 135461 97.10 US $ 01/31/00

Blair Kenneth Adamache wrote:

> Ivana, has OPS been used to publish a recent TPC-C benchmark? The top ten
> only seems to have Oracle 8i and Oracle 7 results. The only OPS result I can
> find is from 12/98, somewhere around 37th place (shown below).
>
> If could beg a small indulgence, Ms. Humpalot, does OPS run into some scaling
> difficulties because of shared disk? My view of HA on shared nothing is that
> if you have 12 nodes, each node can be backed up in a mutual takeover
> configuration by 1-11 other nodes (depending on whether you cluster for HA
> pair wise, or use something more complex). No need for a distributed lock
> manager to resolve who owns the disk. NODE A dies - NODE B takes over. In
> shared disk, NODE A dies, and NODE B fights with other nodes using that disk
> to save the work that NODE A was doing. 12 times as likely to fail? Perhaps,
> but far less likely to run into contention for shared devices, as nothing gets
> shared.
>
> I should also state my bias, and point out that Blair Kenneth Adamache is not
> my real name (actually it is, but I am trying to get my coworkers to address
> me as "Ensign").
>
> The OPS result I could find:
>
> Compaq ProLiant 6500-PDC/01000
> TPC-C Rev 3.5
> Report Date: 12/23/98
> Total System Cost TPC-C
> Throughput
> Price/Performance
> 1692980.00 US $
> 33935.90
> 49.88
>
> Database Manager: Oracle 8 Parallel Server v 8.05
> Operating System: Windows NT 4.0
> CPU: Intel Pentium II Xeon 400 MHz
> # of CPUs: 16
> Cluster: Y
>
> Ivana Humpalot wrote:
>
> > "Garfield A. Lewis" <galewis_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote in message:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > Please..., let us know of any other TPC-C benchmark that includes HA...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > We do not say that HA is not important but whatever costs are associated
 with
> > > it will be at least equally applied across any real world setup based on
 the
> > > benchmark costs.
> > >
> >
> > Oracle Parallel Server is designed for high availability.
> >
> > In Microsoft's and IBM's configuration, the database is split among
> > many different machines. If any one of those machines fail the database
> > becomes unavailable. This means a configuration that uses 12 machines
> > is 12 times LESS reliable as a configuration that only uses one
> > machine.
> >
> > In Oracle Parallel Server, a configuration that uses 12 machines is
> > 12 times MORE reliable than a configuration that only uses one machine.
> > However it should be noted that the disk is still a single point of
> > failure. But this is still 12 times more reliable than an IBM or
> > Microsoft configuration consisting of 12 machines.
> >
> > This is why I said that 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. Unlike Oracle, IBM's performance comes at the
> > cost of reliability. (Unless additional hardware is used to improve
> > reliability, which dramatically drives up costs.)
Received on Thu Jul 06 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT