Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

Your response is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The lowest cost per transaction for any reported Oracle solution is a 12 x 8 cluster, with 15 users and total hardware of $13 million USD.

The results are published at the same web site.

What I find humorous is that anyone places merit in the tpc-C, as not one test case in the top 10 lowest cost/trans is produced with anything like a real world user load. It doesn't matter if the cost/trans is 10 cents if you have to spend up to $1M per user to achieve it.

Mike

Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer wrote in message <88j6pi$d41$1_at_new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...
>[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
>
>"Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl_at_mediaone.com> writes:
>
>>This is meaningless for the database vendors until with get TPC's from
them
>>on similar hardware.
>
>>On the other hand, this doesn't look real good for Sun. Sun doesn't have a
>>hardware offering that is competitive with the Compaq box.
>
>
>Read the executive summary; it looks like a 12x8 processor (12 node)
>solution using clustering.
>
>12 boxes, not one. The clients evenly distributed over the nodes.
>
>TPC_C is relatively easy to sub divide; so this is basically a
>"we can do 220000/12 or around 20,000 tpc-c on one 8CPU box"
>
>Comparable to the first > 100,000 result by Digital; not a serious
>indication for "big iron" performance.
>
>Casper
>--
>Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
>to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
>Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
>be fiction rather than truth.
Received on Thu Feb 24 2000 - 14:42:55 CST