Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: DB2 Crushes Oracle RAC on TPC-C benchmark

Re: DB2 Crushes Oracle RAC on TPC-C benchmark

From: Stu Charlton <stuartcharlton_at_gmail.com>
Date: 3 Feb 2005 19:22:58 -0800
Message-ID: <175ee95d.0502031922.4d05c6b7@posting.google.com>


"Mark A" <nobody_at_nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<ffGdneMcJ4qE8mHcRVn-hQ_at_comcast.com>...

> The cost/TPM of the DB2 benchmark is slightly lower than the Oracle RAC
> cost/TPM. If the Oracle RAC used the IBM 1.9 GHz processor nodes rather than
> the Intel nodes, the cost of the Oracle RAC would be much higher than the
> DB2 benchmark.

Erhm, by what reasoning? Performance doesn't remain constant in the face of across-the-board hardware upgrades -- it does tend to rise :-)

Let's break this one down.

A 4-way pSeries p5 570 is $94k USD on IBM's website. The only TPC benchmark for the p5 570 lists ram at $108k for 32gb.

So:
16 x 4-way p5 570's with 8gb RAM and 72mb L3 cache = $1.5m 64 x 32gb memory boards = $6.9m
Subtotal: $8.4m
Less 47% Discount: $3.95m
Total: $4.45m for the CPU + Memory + Chassis. Add another ~$500k for extras (Fibre channel HBAs, Interconnect, etc.) Grand Total: $5m

That's $1.5m less than the $6.5m (discounted) for the p595.

So, assuming the same storage & client configuration as IBM's p595 benchmark, and maintenance on the p570 and p595 is a wash, all that's left is software -- Oracle+Redhat is $1.6m discounted, vs. AIX+DB2's $800k. So add $800k to the total.

That's still $800k cheaper than the p595 solution, with 128 GB more ram (2176 gb total) and double the L3 cache. The only open question is if the cluster would bring in similar TPCC figures as the SMP box.

With 3x the number of spindles (!), 92% more L3 cache, and 65% more RAM vs. the prior Oracle benchmark, I think there's a reasonable chance Oracle RAC would sing.

Conjecture aside, my point is that the Oracle solution would not have a "much higher" cost/TPM. It probably would be similar to IBM's. Of course, this is all back-of-the-usenet-post calculations, so YMMV.

Cheers,
Stu Received on Thu Feb 03 2005 - 21:22:58 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US