Re: Benchmarks

The TPC-A numbers are pretty meaningless. In fact, the TPC-A benchmark is being withdrawn in by the TPC council in the near future (I can't remember the exact date off-hand). The TPC-C numbers are definitely more realistic. I'd ask Oracle for their TPC-C numbers to get a better read on your environment.

In article <jhalpinCv2FI9.3n7_at_netcom.com>, jhalpin_at_netcom.com (Joe Halpin) writes:
|> My company has been going through a process of evaluating Unix servers
|> which will be used to run a moderately large Oracle database system. The
|> time for a decision is drawing near, and there is still considerable
|> anxiety about it. Most of that anxiety revolves around the available
|> benchmarks for the servers, and how to estimate their meaning.
|>
|> For example, we have a set of "tps", TPC-A and TPC-C benchmarks for the
|> three servers in question (a Data General AViiON 8500, HP H50, and Sun
|> SPARCserver 1000). I'm not sure what to make of the "tps" numbers, as
|> they are sometimes defined as estimates, and sometimes as TPC-A figures.
|> As for the others, they are generally in what looks to us like the same
|> ballpark.
|>
|> How much variation can one expect between the numbers seen in one of
|> these benchmarks, and what can be expected in real life? Is there a
|> generally accepted range, such as "Real life is within 10% one way or the
|> other of TPC-A numbers"?
|>
|> Any ideas about how to look at these benchmarks would be much appreciated.
|>
|> Also, if anyone has actually compared two or more of the systems
|> mentioned, I'd love hear how your compared them and what the results you
|> saw were.
|>
|> I'd appreciate any responses either here or through email.
|>
|> Thanks.
|> --
|> Joe Halpin
|> jhalpin_at_netcom.com
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

-- 
Kenton Milligan
DB2/400 Development 
IBM Rochester-AS/400 Division
kmill_at_rchland.vnet.ibm.com
GO VIKES!!
(opinions stated are not necessarily those of my employer)