Re: Oracle Performance on HP vs Sun ?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 01:34:14 GMT
Message-ID: <CMon12.Bzq_at_cup.hp.com>
Tim Read - Sun Linlithgow Snr SE and DB Amb. (timr_at_cerrera.uk.sun.com) wrote:
A couple points of clarification that might answer the original question (developing a comparison between the HP9000 E35 and the SS10:51):
There are TPC-A and TPC-C numbers for the SS1000/8-way (1079 tpmC _at_ $1,032/tpmC for the TPC-C and 401 tpsA @ $5,068/tpsA for the TPC-A). You could develop a ratio of the tps/tpm from those two data points and extrapolate an approximation of the tps for an HP9000 E35. I know I'll get flamed for this because there are all sorts of caveats and exceptions (TPC-A's often use ORACLE while TPC-C's frequently use Informix OnLine, etc), but the resulting number probably provides the approximate OLTP tps of the system.
With regard to the E35, it has been shipping since its January intoduction. I think the TPC full disclosure report said March availability, but that was due to some ancillary software (the TP monitor, I believe) and not the system availability.
The TPC-C numbers listed below miss the highest TPC-C published to date - the HP9000 T500! The HP/Sun list would look like this with the T500's TPC-C result:
: System tpmC $/tpmC Total Cost"hostile" working environments, appreciate an integrated backup device so you don't have an extra box to kick around, no extra power supply(and power cable) - fundamentally fewer points of failure.
: HP 800/E35 401.07 $1895 $759,865
: HP 800/H40 406.65 $2547 $1,035,773
: Sun SS1000 1079.43 $1032 $1,113,952
T500 2110.5 $2,115 Customers that I have spoken with, especially people with more
THe HP9000 890 TPC-A that was mentioned in an earlier post is interesting only insofar as the information it misses. The HP9000 890 was a 4-way SMP system that used 60 MHz CPUs. The 890's successor (HP9000 T500) uses 90 MHz CPUs that can go to a 12-way configuration. You can use the extrapolation above (tps/tpm) to get a TPC estimate that is quite impressive. HP only published a TPC-C number for the T500 (no TPC-A results). This paragraph is relevant in that HP has demonstrated a far more scalable product line that can hit performance points far above anything that Sun provides ... but we digress from the original question that initiated this discussion: the E35 vs. the SS10:51.
The total cost of ownership in the TPC benchmarks that is mentioned in a previous post is not too relevant. What is relevant is YOUR cost of ownership. I think you'll find it to be quite low with the HP9000 E35.
Best regards,
Todd
tthieman_at_cup.hp.com
Received on Tue Mar 15 1994 - 02:34:14 CET