On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, "Jonathan Eunice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Btw, in discussing scalability, you might want to keep in mind that
> the world's fastest TPC-C benchmark (that is, DBMS and OLTP
> performance) is a Windows 2000 cluster. At just over 440K tpmC, it
> beats the fastest Unix competitor (at ~136K tpmC, the IBM S80, a 24x
> box) by over 3:1. If you forego absolute performance in favor of
> price/performance, all ten of the top ten resuls run Windows. Linux
> has never run this race.
>
> I know it's fun to bash Microsoft, but Windows' benchmark
> results--audited, no less--are quite resonable. If you're interested
> in a technical rather than marketing discussion, it's something you
> may want to keep in mind.
I was looking into this 440K tpmC W2K result a little bit, tpc.org and
usenet. Seems people are complaining (oracle perhaps the loudest :-)
the that the database was split into 10 pieces with NO high
availability (I.e. if when a machine crashes, and some one mentioned
that the MTBF was about 3 hours, then only 90% of your tables are
available). Admittedly benchmarks are unrealistic, but perhaps this is
stretching it. To have high availability you'd have to double the # of
servers, (right?) which cuts the tpcC by half.
I don't follow the tpc world. I'd appreciate your thoughts.
My armchair opinion is that in 12 months we'll see an IBM + linux
combo on the top ten list for the price/performance benchmark.
Karl Runge
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
