"TPC doesn't really matter"
- You are correct: no single metric covers it all.
But, Oracle is sure all over the ad pages when
it FINALLY manages to get one near the top. Which
isn't often. And right now, hands down, SS2K is
about FOUR TIMES AS FAST as Oracle. "Hang on to
yer doors, there's a REAL POWER UNIT coming by!"
"OraMag says...."
- Uh huh. Sure. Right. Fine. Whatever.
"Industry Sources say..."
- see above. Quoting independent sources permits verifiability.
"NT crashes once a week"
- See the current Aberdeen Report, January 2001 on
the reliability of Win2K. After SS2K blows your doors
off, this report will blow your mind. (User must open
mind first! :-) They note, across a range of NT5 sites,
99.99% uptime. Bet most Unix sites don't match that.
Only one Unix site that I've worked on has - hardware,
software, something causes problems. The worst offender,
by far? Sun. (Think "E-bay") But, this is purely anecdotal evidence.
"Locking Problems...dirty reads"
- You mean in SS6.5, right? Because they were fixed
in SS7.0. The only thing worse than having purely
anecdotal information is having OLD anecdotal information.
Here's something to bring you closer to up-to-date:
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/productinfo/transadv.htm
Well, I gotta go now. I need to continue solving Oracle database
problems using my ( spell it with me, folks ) "iTAR".
LOL!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse, Rich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:42 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Actually, not that it matters from what I can tell, but Oracle is tops if
you consider clustered vs. non-clustered. It seems that Oracle doesn't even
have tests for clustered systems. I wonder what happened to the VLDB tests
in the huge DEC/Compaq Alpha cluster?
As far as SQL (pronounced: "SQueaL") Server "blown the doors off", there are
factors that TPC does not consider. First, is reliability. According to
Oracle Magazine, Jan/Feb 2001, p38, "...a 12-computer configuration from
Microsoft, such as that used in recent TPC-C benchmarks, is estimated to
experience a catastophic failure once every 7.5 days, according to
Microsoft's own estimates." Granted, the quote is from Oramag, but I've
heard the same from other "Industry Sources".
I know of a specific implementation where the NT database servers would dog
and/or crash when approximately 500 concurrent users were attached (note:
"attached" <> "active") to the database. The decision was made to dump NT
for DB serving and go with a major (HP or Sun or IBM) flavor of Unix for
it's scalability and reliability.
Second, when was the last time you needed a 500K TPC-C from only 48 clients?
From a couple thousand, yes, but only 48? And who's gonna buy everyone in
their company a $7500 desktop PC with twin PIII-800s in them for clients?
While those numbers are specific to the top TPC-C Compaq/MS result, that's
how all these companies get their numbers.
I'm not betting my job on TPC-C numbers. The numbers just don't reflect
real-life situations.
And I didn't even touch upon the potential locking problems on SQL Server,
or how it can do dirty reads... :)
Just my $.02. I need to go create some Oracle databases on HP/UX now. ;)
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 09:56
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
"NT still pants"...LOL!!!
It must be panting alot, It has BLOWN THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in
running
SQLServer on NT, as has DB2.
The general public ( and anyone else ) can wake up and smell the coffee at
www.tpc.org <http://www.tpc.org> .
Check out the Top Ten TPC-C marks, by pure performance.
Not interested in pure peformance? Check out the Price/Performance leaders.
Oracle doesn't
even SHOW UP in the top ten. What a shocker, eh? It's painful to lose our
illusions....
Oh, what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or somesuch? Fine,
check out ANY
of the TPC benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it doesn't
even show
up.
I mean, I like Oracle, too, but....by the time you turn on the multimode
airconditioner, use
the 12-way adjustable power bucket seats, activate the object-oriented
OnStar Satellite
navigational system, power up the heated side view mirrors and all the other
tools, trinkets,
and toys that make it my personal favorite database, there *is* the chance
that the
twenty year old genius mechanic in the the tricked out Nova next to you at
the light is going
to kick your ass when the light turns green.
But really, I still love Oracle. Warts and all.
Wanna drag?
(heh heh heh)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 6:45 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I have actually been doing a fair it of reading on this since the topic was
brought up, and stand corrected, as earlier mentioned. But I have to say
guys that NT is still fairly "pants" when it comes to handling multi
threaded processes.. Win2K is a great improvement but M$ still has a lot of
work to do on in my view. (only when you compare this against UNIX)
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 :)
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.
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..
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..
(If there any NT admins out there don't flame me, I have to deal with it
every day of my life...)
Regards
Mark
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 :^)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 07:00
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Oracle on NT runs as
ONE PROCESS
with
MULTIPLE THREADS
for performance reasons (no more
need for shared memory....context switches
are a LOT less expensive, etc.)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:51 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
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
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
can remember, that is).
Yong Huang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
sometimes..
But, I may be wrong.. List?
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ <http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/>
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
<http://www.orafaq.com>
--
Author: yong huang
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses with Trend Micro's Interscan VirusWall.
