From: Norris Subject: Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records! Date: 2000/03/03 Message-ID: <89n6fq$1hb0$1@adenine.netfront.net>#1/1 References: <38ace385$1$8288@readdo01.news> <38B8BCE6.E45FD33E@qnet.com> <89et1e$1fn$1@web1.cup.hp.com> X-Complaints-To: news@netfront.net X-Trace: adenine.netfront.net 952048954 50528 202.81.252.1 (3 Mar 2000 02:02:34 GMT) Organization: Netfront http://www.netfront.net/ User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980818 ("Laura") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.2-RELEASE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Mar 2000 02:02:34 GMT Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.databases.oracle.misc,comp.databases.oracle.server,comp.databases.sybase,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.unix.aix SQL Server 2000 achieved its impressive scores using a new feature called distributed partitioned views. This configuration let Microsoft physically distribute slices of a single table across multiple servers but logically access the table as an integrated whole. Microsoft calls this configuration a "federated database," a precursor to the 100 percent shared-nothing cluster architecture plans for Yukon (the version after SQL Server 2000). Microsoft spread the federated database across 12 Compaq servers, each running 8 CPUs for a combined total of 96 CPUs. The best Oracle score came on a single SMP-based IBM machine running 24 CPUs. In comp.databases.sybase Rick Jones wrote: > If someone can do a benchmark in a "shared nothing" manner (or perhaps > a "shared hardly anything" manner) the benchmark becomes more about > how many systems can you get your hands-on for the measurement than > anything else, and it will tend to scale even if you link the nodes > with lengths of wet string :) > rick jones > -- > these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) > feel free to email, OR post, but please do NOT do BOTH... > my email address is raj in the cup.hp.com domain...