The claims are certainly interesting...I haven't looked through it super detailed, but I would definitely keep in mind who is making the claims. Looking at it briefly, it looks like something is really wrong, looking at their scaling graphs. Without further information, I think it's hard to properly analyze their results, especially coming from a competing vendor.
I don't know where this 40k figure comes from...coming from IBM's own cost-analysis paper, the pricing is more like starting at 500k, and easily going 1mil+. http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/ime14024usen/IME14024USEN.PDF It would be interesting if they posted their source code, to see if they're doing something silly, or if anyone could rectify their performance issues. Otherwise, I think it's fair to assume this is potentially a "novice" versus "first-party supported expert" comparisons of implementations. On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anybody who has ever only paid 40K$ to IBM for anything should deserve a > prize. That is just the entry fee. > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Marc Vaillant <[email protected]>wrote: > >> To play devil's advocate, if you believe the stream performance gains, >> then the 40k will likely pay for itself in needing to deploy a fraction >> of the resources for the same throughput. >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:02:53AM -0400, John Welcher wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Streams also cost 40,000 US while Storm is free. >> > >> > John >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Klausen Schaefersinho < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I found some interesting comparison of IBM Stream and Storm: >> > >> > https://www.ibmdw.net/streamsdev/2014/04/22/streams-apache-storm/ >> > >> > It also includes an interesting comparison between ZeroMQ and the >> Netty >> > Performance. >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Klaus >> > >> > >> > >
