Re: lies damn lies and benchmarks

in article YOzC8.717$eR3.46772_at_news.uswest.net, Pablo Sanchez at pablo_at_dev.null wrote on 5/9/02 12:08 PM:

> The fact remains, that the unbiased TPC-C benchmarks show that
> multiversioning and locking are non-issues.

How do you arrive at this conclusion ?

The TPC's clearly show that one vendor scales well to more CPU's in a single box than any other vendor, and that the performance per CPU is also stronger (not that that is a legal measure).

This is why clustering has destroyed the TPC-C as a valid measure (in much the same way as MV's destroyed the TPC-D).

Simply put, any vendor that can't scale up can now scale out and the vendor that can get the biggest kit together wins. Look at the disk alone - one result uses 60 terabytes of disk per node, for 32 nodes. Over 3500 18 Gig disk drives - without mirroring. What's the average MTTF for an 18 Gig drive - once a year - twice a year ? In this config, 5-10 drives would be failing daily. Recovery would be a nightmare, and with 128 Terabytes of memory on board, it would take days to re-load all the caches - but nevermind that nobody in the real world can take advantage of all this effort.

Time for a new benchmark. One that measures price/performance AND availability. Received on Thu May 09 2002 - 23:18:44 CDT