ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: New TPC benchmarks
I love to read the Full Disclosure Reports:
There were 672 x 18GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP, 1344 x 36GB15krpm HDD
Ultra320 HP and 224 x 146GB 10krpm HDD
Ultra320 HP in the benchmarked configuration.
FYI: 672+1344+224 = 2240.
IBM is considering a 1.6M
I agree with the benefits of being able to
wave benchmark papers around and
saying But look what they HAD to do !
The line from one of the HP ones (1M tpcc)
that I really liked was:
quote
Most of the space on the arrays in the tested system was unused during
the performance tests, but is
Not just hash clusters, single-table hash clusters
with user-defined, and very carefully designed hash
key. Not something you can usually get away with
in a dynamic table of 19 billion rows.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
The educated person is not the person
who
- Original Message -
I beg to differ.
When I ask for 2 external storage units of 14 drives apiece (DAS), and they look at
me like I obviously have no clue
about their intentions of a 3 drive RAID something other than 10 config, a
configuration that they can download just by
showing
Gives a whole new meaning to the expression
surrogate key...
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:19 PM
Not just hash clusters, single-table hash clusters
with
In good, old times when I was much younger then today, things
that were benchmarked were called MIPS, which was short for
Marketing Invention for Pushing Sales. Today they have
TPC transactions which are equally relevant to the real
world, but have no good translation. Whoever chooses hardware
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
Finally, Oracle reclaims the lead! That Sqlserver isn't as scalable
argument doesn't work too well when Sqlserver has a higher TPC benchmark.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Michael Boligan
I love to read the Full Disclosure Reports:
There were 672 x 18GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP, 1344 x 36GB15krpm HDD
Ultra320 HP and 224 x 146GB 10krpm HDD
Ultra320 HP in the benchmarked configuration.
FYI: 672+1344+224 = 2240.
IBM is considering a 1.6M benchmark, and the only problem these days is
Mogens Nørgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark.
Then
you can break any report.
It's not only today... It's been like that for the last
8 years or so. Basically: Have $$$? Will win is the
entire philosophy of all this TPC crap.
ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: New TPC benchmarks
I love to read the Full Disclosure Reports:
There were 672 x 18GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP, 1344 x 36GB15krpm HDD
Ultra320 HP and 224 x 146GB 10krpm HDD
Ultra320 HP in the benchmarked configuration.
FYI: 672+1344+224 = 2240.
IBM is considering
Nuno,
The whole thing is an extravagant waste.
I beg to differ.
When I ask for 2 external storage units of 14 drives apiece (DAS), and they look at me like I obviously have no clue about their intentions of a 3 drive RAID something other than 10 config, a configuration that they can download
what's really helpful about these, are the server tweaks made (if you deploy on win32).
check out http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf
Pg 170 - there's a list of all of the services that are disabled/stopped - 24 in all.
Pg 224 - the section of the MS diagnostics report
Yes, both DB2, SQL Server and Oracle arrive in special editions for
these benchmarks. Note also that no indexes are used - Oracle uses hash
clusters, for instance. No indexes in sight. Just like certain large
customers are running special versions of the Oracle RDBMS, by the way.
So it's all
13 matches
Mail list logo
