Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: randmiser who wrote (25912)	7/13/1999 8:16:00 AM
From: Martin Rasch	Respond to of 74651

from the Gorilla Game discussion list : SQL Server breaks 40,000 tpmC mark on Pentium III Xeon 8-way! Windows 2000 COM+ replaces Tuxedo SQL Server 7.0 (SP2) has achieved a new performance milestone with 40,013 tpmC on a Compaq ProLiant 8000 (8xPentium III Xeon 550 MHz) at a price of 18.86 $/tpmC. But wait, there's more! This benchmark result is the first to use COM+ in Windows 2000 as the transaction monitor, replacing BEA Tuxedo. Performance At 40,013 tpmC, SQL Server is demonstrating a level of performance that places 14th overall by total performance. In fact, there are only a few non-cluster results with better performance, regardless of the number of CPUs. COM+ TPC-C requires that queuing and routing of transactions must be done with a commercial transaction monitor. Most TPC-C results use BEA Tuxedo. For more than a year now, the transaction monitor was the only non-Microsoft software in our SQL Server TPC-C results. With COM+ in Windows 2000, we now have a 100% Microsoft software solution. By using COM+, Compaq was able to get more performance on the client machines than with Tuxedo. And because COM+ is a standard component in W2K, the cost of Tuxedo was eliminated resulting in better price/performance. Comparison to Oracle Oracle is desperately trying to avoid any comparison to SQL Server on apples-to-apples hardware. Rather than show just how bad their performance is on mainstream SMPs, Oracle has pursued a strategy of publishing "trophy" numbers-i.e., high-end numbers on exotic cluster configurations. In so doing, Oracle tries to obscure their high cost and poor per-CPU performance. Consider the following comparisons: Oracle 8.0 SQL Server 7 Performance (tpmC) 40,077 40,013 Price/Perf ($/tpm) 40.40 18.86 System Compaq ProLiant 6500 Compaq ProLiant 8000 (4 node cluster) Hardware 4 x 4 Pentium III 500 MHz 8 Pentium III 550 MHz Publication Date 5/7/99 7/12/99 tpmC per CPU 2,504 5,001 Total memory 13 GB 4 GB Analysis: SQL Server achieves the same performance as Oracle with half the number of CPUs and more than 2x better price/performance. Oracle 8i SQL Server 7 Performance (tpmC) 50,208 40,013 Price/Perf ($/tpm) 94.05 18.86 System NEC Express 5800 Compaq ProLiant 8000 (4 node cluster) Hardware 4 x 8 Pentium III 550 MHz 8 Pentium III 550 MHz Publication Date 6/29/99 7/12/99 tpmC per CPU 1,569 5,001 Total memory 16 GB 4 GB Analysis: Oracle delivers a mere 25% more performance using four times more CPUs with five times worse price/performance than SQL Server. Overall n SQL Server has the best 8-way performance result on NT n SQL Server has the second best 8-way performance on any platform n SQL Server dominates the TPC-C price/performance category, with a clean sweep of the 30 best price/performance results. More details: <http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.8000.99071201.es.pdf> For full details on TPC results, use the TPC result database at tpc.org. I'm not pretending that I understand anything above but it seems to me that MSFT is eating ORCL's lunch :-) MR