RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

From: Richard Ji <richard_at_letsplay.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:53:01 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.002AAFB5.20010205113030@fatcity.com>

Just
because Oracle hasn't done a benchmark doesn't mean Oracle can't out perform SQL-Server or DB2. Benchmark is very expensive to do, Oracle doesn't need to prove to the world every year that it is the best. Oracle has the reputation that MS and IBM don't have. That's why MS and IBM needs to do it. And do you know how many scientists MS had to do that benchmark? I wonder if they factor that into the Price/Performance. Can you (do you) have the same resources in the real world to achive that result? Needless to say performance is not the only thing you measure a DB. How good is SQL-Server when the underlying OS crashes so often? 
Richard Ji

-----Original Message-----From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Mohan, RossSent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:56 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows "NT
 still pants"...LOL!!!

<SPAN

 class=176484515-05022001>It must be
 panting alot, It has BLOWN THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in running

SQLServer on NT, as has DB2.

 The
 general public ( and anyone else ) can wake up and smell the coffee at <A href="http://www.tpc.org">www.tpc.org.
Check out the Top Ten TPC-C marks, by pure performance.


 Not
 interested in pure peformance? Check out the Price/Performance leaders. Oracle doesn't
 even
 SHOW UP in the top ten. What a shocker, eh? It's painful to lose our illusions....

 Oh,
 what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or somesuch? Fine, check out ANY
 of
 the TPC benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it doesn't even show
 up.


 I
 mean, I like Oracle, too, but....by the time you turn on the multimode airconditioner, use
 the
 12-way adjustable power bucket seats, activate the object-oriented OnStar Satellite
navigational system, power up the heated side view mirrors and all the other tools, trinkets, and
 toys that make it my personal favorite database, there *is* the chance that the
twenty year old genius mechanic in the the tricked out Nova next to you at the light is going to
 kick your ass when the light turns
 green.

 But
 really, I still love Oracle. Warts and all.

Wanna drag?

 (heh
 heh heh)





-----Original Message-----From: Mark Leith [mailto:mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk]Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 6:45 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: Async I/O on Windows I
 have actually been doing a fair it of reading on this since the topic was brought up, and stand corrected, as earlier mentioned. But I have to say guys that NT is still fairly "pants" when it comes to handling multi threaded processes.. Win2K is a great improvement but M$ still has a lot of work to do on in my view. (only when you compare this against UNIX)

Now don't get me wrong, there is enough traffic on this list about this at the moment, so I dont want more bandwith added with this thread if at all possible :)
 
 Thanks for the reply anyway Yong, I think I will wait for a "good" book on Win2k to come out (unless you know one?) before I go out and buy one (books come out of my pocket as I am a sales person mostly).. NT as far as I am concerned is now in Win2K's shadow, and I think that is the way of the future for Windowze bound people. 
 For all out there that have used NT and not Win2K - TRY IT.. Services are handled a LOT better, file management and sharing.. All sorts of new fun stuff to sink your teeth in to.. 
 As
 a side note, for the last line of my first paragraph - I also feel that UNIX cannot be compared in anyway to Windows at this time. Windowze O/S's are designed for pointy clicky people that prefer to look at a nice GUI interface, and generally don't have the indepth technical knowledge that a good UNIX sys admin does..
 
 (If there any NT admins out there don't flame me, I have to deal with it every day of my life...) 
 Regards
 
 Mark
 
 The views expressed here are soley those coming out of my coffee deprived hungover mind.. They do not express those of my employers, though I'm sure they agree :^)

      <FONT face=Tahoma 
      size=2>-----Original Message-----From: root_at_fatcity.com 
      [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Mohan, RossSent: 
      Friday, February 02, 2001 07:00To: Multiple recipients of list 
      ORACLE-LSubject: RE: Async I/O on Windows
      Oracle on NT runs as 
      ONE PROCESS 
      with 
      MULTIPLE THREADS 
      for performance reasons (no more <FONT 
      size=2>need for shared memory....context switches <FONT 
      size=2>are a LOT less expensive, etc.) 
      -----Original Message----- From: 
      yong huang [<A 
      href="mailto:yong321_at_yahoo.com">mailto:yong321_at_yahoo.com] 
      Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:51 PM <FONT 
      size=2>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <FONT 
      size=2>Subject: Async I/O on Windows 
      Hi, Mark, 
      Async I/O is available on Windows, at least NT. It's not 
      an easy topic. If you think you already know 
      enough about operating systems in general, I suggest you <FONT 
      size=2>read David Solomon's "Inside WindowsNT". For a lab test, launch 
      Performance Monitor on your NT box and look at the 
      counters for Cache. 
      I'm not sure by "single thread management" whether you 
      mean NT can't have multiple processes or Oracle on 
      NT runs as one thread. The former is obviously <FONT 
      size=2>wrong. The latter is a design issue inside Oracle Corporation and 
      the question as to why was asked on this forum 
      before without an answer (without an answer I can 
      remember, that is). 
      Yong Huang <FONT 
      size=2>yong321_at_yahoo.com 
      you wrote: 
      Asynch I/O on a Windowze box? supresses a 
      snigger... 
      To the best of my knowledge there are no Windows based 
      system that can take advantage of this, single 
      thread management can be enough a problem <FONT 
      size=2>sometimes.. 
      But, I may be wrong.. List? 
      __________________________________________________ 
      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only 
      $35 a year!  <A 
      href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/" 
      target=_blank>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ <FONT 
      size=2>-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: <A 
      href="http://www.orafaq.com" 
      target=_blank>http://www.orafaq.com -- 
      Author: yong huang   
      INET: yong321_at_yahoo.com 
      Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 
      538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, 
      California        -- Public Internet 
      access / Mailing Lists <FONT 
      size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
      To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail 
      message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT 
      spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, 
      include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the 
      name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may 
      also send the HELP command for other information (like 
      subscribing).

Received on Mon Feb 05 2001 - 13:53:01 CST