RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

From: Mohan, Ross <MohanR_at_STARS-SMI.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:39:51 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.002AB0BB.20010205120554@fatcity.com>

Well,
that was certainly a interestingly-reasoned response. I haven't
seen
logic applied like that since...since....since....well, I have never
seen
such a display of logic.


Just
to recap, your arguments are:

1)
"Just because they didn't do a benchmark, doesn't mean they can't"

Actually, Oracle submitted a benchmark. Lot's of them. Right now, they FAIL to
 top the list in ANY category.

2)
"Benchmarks are expensive, and so Oracle won't repeat them, because Oracle is the best."

 I guess, on this basis, we can cancel the Olympics, the Tour de France, etc. The major networks could save BOATS of money by letting them in on this stunning insight. Come to think of it,
 this would put Alex Trebek, (the host of Jeopardy! ) out of a job. Why keep showing that
 silly show?

3)
They don't factor "scientists" [sic] into Price/Performance benchmarks.

Well....not explicitly, no. Just by WINNING them! Ha! Or did I misunderstand, and your real complaint was that Microsoft has scientists, and Oracle doesn't?

4) "Can you do a benchmark?"

 No; properly done and referred, they cost about six figures. I have found it far more cost-effective
 to read the results. Of course, having an entirely uninformed opinion is highly cost effective, too. 



 -----Original Message-----From: Richard Ji [mailto:richard_at_letsplay.com]Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:30 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

Just
 because Oracle hasn't done a benchmark doesn't mean Oracle can't out perform SQL-Server or DB2. Benchmark is very expensive to do, Oracle doesn't need to prove to the world every year that it is the best. Oracle has the reputation that MS and IBM don't have. That's why MS and IBM needs to do it. And do you know how many scientists MS had to do that benchmark? I wonder if they factor that into the Price/Performance. Can you (do you) have the same resources in the real world to achive that result? Needless to say performance is not the only thing you measure a DB. How good is SQL-Server when the underlying OS crashes so often?
 
 Richard Ji

-----Original Message-----From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Mohan, RossSent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:56 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
"NT still pants"...LOL!!!

<SPAN

 class=176484515-05022001>It must be panting alot, It has BLOWN THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in running

SQLServer on NT, as has DB2.

The general public ( and anyone else ) can wake up and smell the coffee at www.tpc.org.

Check out the Top Ten TPC-C marks, by pure performance.


Not interested in pure peformance? Check out the Price/Performance leaders. Oracle doesn't
even SHOW UP in the top ten. What a shocker, eh? It's painful to lose our illusions....

Oh, what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or somesuch? Fine, check out ANY
 of
 the TPC benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it doesn't even show
up.

 I
 mean, I like Oracle, too, but....by the time you turn on the multimode airconditioner, use
the 12-way adjustable power bucket seats, activate the object-oriented OnStar Satellite
navigational system, power up the heated side view mirrors and all the other tools, trinkets,
and toys that make it my personal favorite database, there *is* the chance that the
twenty year old genius mechanic in the the tricked out Nova next to you at the light is going to
 kick your ass when the light turns
 green.

But really, I still love Oracle. Warts and all.

Wanna drag?

(heh heh heh)





      <FONT face="Times New Roman" 
      size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Mark Leith 
      [mailto:mark_at_cool-tools.co.uk]Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 
      6:45 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list 
      ORACLE-LSubject: RE: Async I/O on Windows
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>I have actually been doing a fair it of reading 
      on this since the topic was brought up, and stand corrected, as earlier 
      mentioned. But I have to say guys that NT is still fairly "pants" when it 
      comes to handling multi threaded processes.. Win2K is a great improvement 
      but M$ still has a lot of work to do on in my view. (only when you compare 
      this against UNIX) 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>Now don't get me wrong, there is enough traffic 
      on this list about this at the moment, so I dont want more bandwith added 
      with this thread if at all possible :)
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>Thanks for the reply anyway Yong, I think I will 
      wait for a "good" book on Win2k to come out (unless you know one?) before 
      I go out and buy one (books come out of my pocket as I am a sales 
      person mostly).. NT as far as I am concerned is now in Win2K's shadow, and 
      I think that is the way of the future for Windowze bound 
      people.
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>For all out there that have used NT and not Win2K 
      - TRY IT.. Services are handled a LOT better, file management and 
      sharing.. All sorts of new fun stuff to sink your teeth in to.. 
      
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>As a side note, for the last line of my first 
      paragraph - I also feel that UNIX cannot be compared in anyway 
      to Windows at this time. Windowze O/S's are designed for pointy 
      clicky people that prefer to look at a nice GUI interface, and generally 
      don't have the indepth technical knowledge that a good UNIX sys admin 
      does.. 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>(If there any NT admins out there don't flame me, 
      I have to deal with it every day of my life...)
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>Regards
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>Mark
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001> 
      <SPAN 
      class=681293710-03022001>The views expressed here are soley those coming 
      out of my coffee deprived hungover mind.. They do not express those of my 
      employers, though I'm sure they agree :^)
      
        <FONT face=Tahoma 
        size=2>-----Original Message-----From: root_at_fatcity.com 
        [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Mohan, RossSent: 
        Friday, February 02, 2001 07:00To: Multiple recipients of 
        list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: Async I/O on 
        Windows
        Oracle on NT runs as 
        ONE PROCESS 
        with 
        MULTIPLE THREADS 
        for performance reasons (no more <FONT 
        size=2>need for shared memory....context switches <FONT 
        size=2>are a LOT less expensive, etc.) 
        -----Original Message----- From: 
        yong huang [<A 
        href="mailto:yong321_at_yahoo.com">mailto:yong321_at_yahoo.com] 
        Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:51 PM 
        To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L 
        Subject: Async I/O on Windows 
        Hi, Mark, 
        Async I/O is available on Windows, at least NT. It's not 
        an easy topic. If you think you already know 
        enough about operating systems in general, I suggest you 
        read David Solomon's "Inside WindowsNT". For a lab 
        test, launch Performance Monitor on your NT box 
        and look at the counters for Cache. 
        I'm not sure by "single thread management" whether you 
        mean NT can't have multiple processes or Oracle 
        on NT runs as one thread. The former is obviously <FONT 
        size=2>wrong. The latter is a design issue inside Oracle Corporation and 
        the question as to why was asked on this forum 
        before without an answer (without an answer I <FONT 
        size=2>can remember, that is). 
        Yong Huang <FONT 
        size=2>yong321_at_yahoo.com 
        you wrote: 
        Asynch I/O on a Windowze box? supresses a 
        snigger... 
        To the best of my knowledge there are no Windows based 
        system that can take advantage of this, single 
        thread management can be enough a problem <FONT 
        size=2>sometimes.. 
        But, I may be wrong.. List? 
        <FONT 
        size=2>__________________________________________________ 
        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - 
        only $35 a year!  <A target=_blank 
        href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/">http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ 
        -- Please see the official 
        ORACLE-L FAQ: <A target=_blank 
        href="http://www.orafaq.com">http://www.orafaq.com <FONT 
        size=2>-- Author: yong huang <FONT 
        size=2>  INET: yong321_at_yahoo.com 
        Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 
        538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, 
        California        -- Public Internet 
        access / Mailing Lists <FONT 
        size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        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 <FONT 
        size=2>(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  
        You may also send the HELP command for other 
        information (like subscribing).

Received on Mon Feb 05 2001 - 14:39:51 CST