Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:01:14 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:

>The chipsets have been around but they are not efficient enough to
>scale well.

Explain that to Sequent. They been doing it since the i386 days. With the old Dynix series. They now do it with the latest Intel stuff and been doing it in-between too, so it wasn't a one off. I personally worked on a 24 CPU box back in 1989, running benchmarks. On UNIX, of course. And ORACLE. And it scaled very well, thank you.

>Where is a benchmark running SCO on 32? Remember I said x86 based.

So did I. Try to look at most of the TPC-n benchmarks that ORACLE has published over the last 10 years. They have mostly been on x86 boxes with oodles of CPUs, running UNIX.

> It
>just doesn't scale well due to bus issues. To be honest I do not know
>the architecture for 4 plus boxes from IBM, HP, and SUN. I imagine
>they all need a way to share the memory bus efficiently.

Beg to disagree. It DOES scale well. Maybe not with NT or MS s/w, but it DEFINITELY scales well with UNIX, and has done so for the last umpteen years. Don't believe everything that Intel/MS put out to explain NT's and SServer's failure to scale well on Intel or Linux's "shortcomings".

>Just because NT is limited by their hardware platform doesn't mean its
>junk.

You got it all wrong. It's not the hardware platform that is limited. It's NT. A fact well recognized by MS many times. You are just not listening. Or have you forgotten that with NT V3 MS admitted quite clearly that it didn't scale AT ALL on x86? Hence the release of NT 4. At that time, UNIX/ORACLE was scaling quite well on just about anything, including x86.

> The biggest advantage of NT if implemented
>properly is cost.

Here I disagree again. If implemented PROPERLY, NT costs about the same as any other UNIX solution. The problem is that nowadays any kid straight out of his mother's milk claims to be an implementer, boots the system and makes it "whirr" and managers go "wow!" and call him a genius and claim all sorts of TCO savings. Then the consultants come in to fix the crap that was "implemented". But of course that is not added up to TCO. Installing an OS is NOT the same as implementing a solution, I'm afraid...

> I think TCO is the major selling point for
>NT/SQL Server. TCO will very from one place to another due to DBA
>skills/ Sysadmin skills but I think with a level playing field SQL 7.0
>will still significantly beat most others out there.

So, the TCO for implementing a solution that requires SPECIFIC application coding for distributed DCOM is cheaper? How is that achieved? By adding the price of the licences for SS and NT? So easy, isn't it? Who pays the fellas who WROTE the EXTRA custom code to make the darn thing work? Was their cost added too?

Things are always soooo "easy and cheap" in the MS camp, one wonders why do they need so many releases and service packs...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Wed Feb 23 2000 - 07:16:42 CST