Re: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Marketing Departments

Now, the fastest operating system for OLTP is IBM AIX

In comp.databases.sybase David Pomphrey - DNP <High.Flight_at_btinternet.com> wrote:
> Two Major MS SQL Server TPC-C benchmarks are withdrawn from the TPC.
> ###########################################################
 

> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/c-withdrawn-results.idc

> Why do withdrawls often happen?
> ###########################################################
 

> Extract from the TPC Faq ( http://www.tpc.org/faq_TPCC.html )
 

> "Q: I notice that some TPC results are labelled "withdrawn." Could you
> explain what that means?
 

> A: The TPC felt that users should be made aware of what results drop
> from the TPC's official results list and why those results no longer
> appear. Some vendors withdraw results because they feel these results no
> longer have market relevance. Other vendors withdraw results after
> compliance to the benchmark specification has been challenged by someone
> within the TPC. Rather than defend their implementation (and perhaps
> expend further resources to demonstrate compliance), the vendor chooses
> to withdraw the result. Finally, if the Council votes that a result is
> non-compliant, the Council will drop the r esult from the official
> results list."

> Microsoft makes NO mention of this on their website.
> ##########################################################
 

> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/tpc.htm - 1st July 2000,
> 1921hrs G.M.T (UTC)

> Oracle's CEO declares the latest MS SQL Server 'PREPOSTEROUS'.
> ##########################################################

> http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/broadcast_oracle.htm
> (you'll need real player -
> http://www.broadcast.com/redirects/realplayer.html)

> Near the 1 hour mark, an analyst from Paine Webber asked a question
> about Microsoft SQL Server 2000. The following is Larry Ellison's
> response:
 

> "In terms of microsoft.. we have no concerns at all. They still can't
> scale. They have this benchmark that they got out which works only in
> the laboratory.
 

> The only problem with microsoft's benchmark is that it has a 3-hour mean
> time of failure. What they have done is to chop up the database in to
> 10 separate little databases, and if any one of those databases fail it
> brings down the entire system, or worse yet gives wrong results.
 

> So it is a completely bogus benchmark.
 

> I mean, it meets the letter of the benchmark rules, however by their own
> statistics in terms of availability they have a very very short mean
> time of failure.
 

> No one seriously will ever use this kind of system.
 

> They have 10 separate computers each with 10% of the database.
> If you want an 11th computer you have to unload the entire database from
> the 10 computers and then put 9.1% of the database on the 11 computers.
> If one of the computers fail you lose 10% of the database. And that
> means when you use your query.. you don't get the right answer back.
 

> If you use 10 separate systems.. if you believe Microsoft's statistics
> on failure rates.. one failure every 30 days, you are going to get a
> major system outage or wrong results every 3 days.
 

> It is a preposterous benchmark."

> MS SQL may be cheaper but Oracle has the highest Performance in the
> TCP-C benchmark.
> #########################################################
 

> Oracle can scale :
 

> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc

> Microsoft can set cheap prices :
 

> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttpp.idc

> A monopoly company can set the price for a product any which way it
> chooses - this is easy.

> But can it make a product that truly scales? - THAT is the question.
> THAT takes technology.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
http://www.cooper.com.hk