I'm a member of
Quicksearch
Codenews Search
Disclaimer
The individual owning this blog works at Sun Microsystems GmbH in Germany, a subsidiary of Oracle. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.
Navigation
Categories
About this blog- Apple
- iPhone
- Aviation
- Bahn
- Begriffe des Lebens
- Blogosphere
- Braindump
- Business Travel
- CANBOX
- CeBIT
- CEC
- Computing
- del.icio.us
- Fundsache
- General
- HHOSUG
- i hate sundays
- Kochen
- Mindfuck
- Movies
- Music
- On Benchmarketing
- Persoenliches Pech
- Photographie
- policy of ...
- Privacy
- Recommended Blogs
- Security
- Solaris
- Strange Days
- Sun/Oracle
- suncec2007
- suncec2008
- Technology
- The IT Business
- Toolbox
- Travel
- Work
Oracle and SPARC
Thursday, August 27. 2009
Looks like Oracle starts to put some weight behind SPARC with a teaser for an announcement taking place on October the 14th at the Oracle World - Performance - Sun plus Oracle is faster.:
Oracle and Sun together are hard to match. Just ask IBM. Its fastest server now runs an impressive 6 million TPC-C transactions, but on October 14 at Oracle OpenWorld, we'll reveal the benchmark numbers that prove that even IBM DB2 running on IBM's fastest hardware can't match the speed and performance of Oracle Database on Sun systems. Check back on October 14 as we demonstrate Oracle's commitment to Sun hardware and Sun SPARC.
Posted by Joerg Moellenkamp
in English, Sun/Oracle, The IT Business
at
18:51
| Comments (12)
| Trackbacks (0)
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Rock is dead 
. Maybe we should ask Marc Tremblay the reason why he lefted Sun and moved to Microsoft. What ? Microsoft ???
. Maybe we should ask Marc Tremblay the reason why he lefted Sun and moved to Microsoft. What ? Microsoft ???
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Sun-in-den-roten-Zahlen--/meldung/144494
Seems more like 'dead by dawn' if HP buys Sun hardware.
Seems more like 'dead by dawn' if HP buys Sun hardware.
Hmm, why should Orace put an ad on Page One WSJ, if they want to sell ...
I'd like to see a better benchmark comparison. Oracle RDBMS 11g runs on AIX, so why not pit SUN vs IBM hardware?
Also, how much more $$ is the Oracle licensing on the SUN system compared to the IBM system?
Also, how much more $$ is the Oracle licensing on the SUN system compared to the IBM system?
FYI, SUN doesn't currently make the list...
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
Yes, because Sun doesn't publish TPC-C results, because of the inherent shortfalls of TPC-C. But many customers, Oracle and at foremost IBM like TPC-C. As a vastly more intelligent person said "TPC-C is a function over the number of harddisks".
I can just assume, that this decision to publish a TPC-C benchmark was made by Oracle.
I can just assume, that this decision to publish a TPC-C benchmark was made by Oracle.
Because nobody does that ... you could say the same to IBM: Why did they published no results for DB2 on Sun hardware?
The nature of TPC-C is to provide an optimized configuration for the task of TPC-C. Due to the nature of TPC-C the impacts doesn't stop at the database. The storage has to be equal, too and so on. This ends up in configurations with 3600 hard disk for example with the IBM configuration.
To say it short: TPC-C isn't a benchmark of a system. It's a benchmark of an architecture to solve the job defined in the benchmarks.
At the end i consider TPC-C inferior to benchmarks like SAP-SD, which has a vastly better model to simulate workload. But, and that's the kicker, customer like it (i still see RfP with TPC-C to define systems) and other companies still use it. So I appreciate this benchmark for exactly one thing: To show that we didn't published TPC-C,because we were slow. After such a benchmark we can say: Look, we have the best result, and now we talk to why this doesn't matter for your workload.
The nature of TPC-C is to provide an optimized configuration for the task of TPC-C. Due to the nature of TPC-C the impacts doesn't stop at the database. The storage has to be equal, too and so on. This ends up in configurations with 3600 hard disk for example with the IBM configuration.
To say it short: TPC-C isn't a benchmark of a system. It's a benchmark of an architecture to solve the job defined in the benchmarks.
At the end i consider TPC-C inferior to benchmarks like SAP-SD, which has a vastly better model to simulate workload. But, and that's the kicker, customer like it (i still see RfP with TPC-C to define systems) and other companies still use it. So I appreciate this benchmark for exactly one thing: To show that we didn't published TPC-C,because we were slow. After such a benchmark we can say: Look, we have the best result, and now we talk to why this doesn't matter for your workload.
Links in this article
The LKSF book
The book with the consolidated Less known Solaris Tutorials is available for download here
Twitterfeeds
twitter.com/c0t0d0s0
just blogged: links for 2010-03-19: Gedanken eines Fliegenden: Freikoerperkultur ... http://bit.ly/c21ARU
twitter.com/codenews
4799074 NFS authentication cache needs some sort of TTL http://bit.ly/b1CoEo
twitter.com/SunPatches
Security patch: 120228-40 - Messaging Server 6.3-11.01: core patch. Available for SPARC since Mar/17/10. http://bit.ly/bk1hw3
twitter.com/SolPatchesX86
122301-49 - SunOS 5.9_x86: Kernel Patch. Available since Mar/17/10. http://bit.ly/9ETInV
twitter.com/SolPatchesSPARC
122300-49 - SunOS 5.9: Kernel Patch. Available since Mar/17/10. http://bit.ly/b9ZvRJ
just blogged: links for 2010-03-19: Gedanken eines Fliegenden: Freikoerperkultur ... http://bit.ly/c21ARU
twitter.com/codenews
4799074 NFS authentication cache needs some sort of TTL http://bit.ly/b1CoEo
twitter.com/SunPatches
Security patch: 120228-40 - Messaging Server 6.3-11.01: core patch. Available for SPARC since Mar/17/10. http://bit.ly/bk1hw3
twitter.com/SolPatchesX86
122301-49 - SunOS 5.9_x86: Kernel Patch. Available since Mar/17/10. http://bit.ly/9ETInV
twitter.com/SolPatchesSPARC
122300-49 - SunOS 5.9: Kernel Patch. Available since Mar/17/10. http://bit.ly/b9ZvRJ
Web 2.0
Contact
Networking
open.bc
LinkedIn
Facebook
My photos
- mail: joerg@c0t0d0s0.org
- icq: 144000169
- Me, myself and I
- openBC
- My del.icio.us
- c0t0d0s0@twitter
- c0t0d0s0@last.fm
- wiki@c0t0d0s0
- Amazon Wishlist
Networking
open.bc
My photos
Syndication
Tagged articles
AMD Apple avs Bahn Blogging Blogosphere braindump Business Travel CeBIT cec cec2006 CMT del.icio.us deutsch dtrace fliegen Fundsache General Hamburg IBM i hate sundays Intel iscsi jumpstart Links Linux lksf Mindfuck Movies Music Musik Niagara Opensolaris Opteron Photographie policy of ... Politik Security Solaris storage Sun suncec2007 sunw t1 The IT Business Ultrasparc ultrasparc t1 Wirtschaft Work ZFS
Comments
Fri, 19.03.2010 20:58
Well, I am being paid to take
care of Solaris 10 systems and
my company will continue to u
se it. But the relativel [...]
Fri, 19.03.2010 17:36
Actually I am curious to know
what would have happened if th
ey objected.
Fri, 19.03.2010 17:31
I agree, it has been a very il
l and stupid waiting...full of
stupid statements...I was so
much waiting for them to [...]
Fri, 19.03.2010 17:05
A little bit late maybe. Don't
think Larry would have cared
if they objected... 
about Ich bin angewidert ....
Fri, 19.03.2010 09:52
@NoTarget:
Heinsohn ist ein
kluger Mann (siehe hier: http
://bit.ly/drhRLA). Das heisst
aber nicht, dass er *nur [...]
Buttons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany License
Tracked: Aug 28, 04:35
Tracked: Aug 28, 04:35