RE: New TPC benchmarks

Mogens,

I wanted to clear something up - I keep seeing you post that SANs are slower than direct attached - I've said it before and I'll say it again:

simply not true.

There is zero, zero, zero reason why a SAN must be slower than a direct attached. In fact, in the fastest benchmark described in these results, the 10g on Itanium one, they're using a SAN. The only reason to direct-attach is to keep the cost down when you have a situation where you can run multiple I/O paths from a single node. There is a fixed limit on the number of direct paths you can run to an array - usually 2-4 - which makes things hard if you want an 8-node cluster.

In general, the TPC benchmark is not a perfect process. However, having dealt with it in great detail, it is vastly superior to any of its predecessors in terms of simulating a real-world environment. While configurations like 2400 disks seem absurd to those of us in the field, the fact alone that you are required to include the total cost of the solution, plus disclose the complete configuration, and are not allowed to use any hidden or secret functionality is a huge step forward from previous benchmarks.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito_at_gridapp.com
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com



> -----Original Message-----

> From: ml-errors_at_fatcity.com [mailto:ml-errors_at_fatcity.com] On 

> Behalf Of Mogens Nørgaard

> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:44 PM

> To: Multiple recipients of list 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 benchmark, and the only problem 

> these days is 

> to find a sponsor for all the hardware you need. It might 

> require 4000 

> disks - maybe mirrored to a total of 8000? The number of 

> disks involved 

> is becoming a problem for two reasons: One of them will 

> probably fail. 

> And since they're directly attached (for performance, SAN's 

> in general 

> suck compared to direct attach, as you know) it could take 

> three hours 

> to boot the machine. So they're considering going 1+0 aka 

> MASE, not the 

> inferior 0+1 or SAME, of course :). Simply to avoid the reboot time...

> 

> Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the 

> benchmark. Then 

> you can break any report.

> 

> All the database vendors run their software in special debug modes 

> during benchmarking - in case they hit something nasty :).

> 

> Notice that they never use anything but shutdown abort in 

> their scripts 

> (Connor - you'll love this). IBM (with DB2) uses a slightly different 

> technique: They take the power. Very fast, they say.

> 

> Mogens

> 

> Michael Boligan wrote:

> 

> >

> >

> >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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mogens_N=F8rgaard?=

>   INET: mln_at_miracleas.dk

> 

> Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com

> San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message

> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') 

> and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB 

> ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed 

> from).  You may also send the HELP command for other 

> information (like subscribing).

> 


-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Matthew Zito
  INET: mzito_at_gridapp.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).