Re: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Marketing Departments

You can say that if you like and as has been stated <some> of the TPC numbers can only be generated in a lab environment. If AIX is so good, then why do 56% of the worlds stockmarkets use Alpha, OpenVMS and Rdb... not ORACLE7/8. Why, because it doesn't break and it doesn't crash. I have seen many VMS systems that once tuned properly don't get rebooted for months and even yearS at a time. They just work... and scalable? Try 16-256 nodes in a true cluster (where all disks are available 100% of the time) and Pb worth of disk. I don't ever recall seeing an AIX system with a PetaBytes worth of disk space. (An NFS mounted filesystem cannot be considered a cluster as some UNIXes would have you believe).

Michael Austin

Norris wrote:

> 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 Two Major MS SQL Server TPC-C benchmarks are withdrawn from the TPC.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 http://www.tpc.org/new_result/c-withdrawn-results.idc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 "Q: I notice that some TPC results are labelled "withdrawn."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

--