Oracle claims a world-record TPC-C result with its database running on a Cisco server and not an Exadata system, although doesn't mention that two Violin memory flash arrays were needed. A Cisco UCS C250 extended memory server with two six-core Xeon X5690 processors, 384GB of DRAM, and two Violin Memory flash arrays (5.3TB V- …
Why Oracle doesn't take on the more up to date and more difficult TPC-E benchmark and stays with the 1994 devised test? The tpc-c test is a database with 5-10 tables, the tpc-E is a proper trading database.
Not the first
Oh, did Larry forget to mention the HP DL980/Violin TPC result they decided not to certify because it was on HP? He always did buy into that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
Oracle was actually quite prescient in *not* publishing that HP Proliant DL980+Violin result back in 2010.
It turned out, shortly after the decision to hold back on publishing, IBM produced a result of close to 75% the TpmC achieved by the 8-socket DL980. IBM, however, required only half the number of processor sockets and their (awesome) MAX5 kit:
8 socket Xeon (Nehalem EX and E7 alike) scalability proven by TPC-C has become sort of a holy grail. Likewise, the TPC-H spread between 4 and 8 sockets (E7) is troubling as well. I have a blog entry teed up on that matter.
Well it also still got beat by a 2 chip 8 core POWER7 submission, that is around 20% for 2/3 the number of cores.
But that's what these big companies do everytime they submit something, and Oracle is perhaps the worst of them, it's a WORLD record... geee.
"...and Oracle is perhaps the worst of them..."
Could you elaborate on that? I would like to learn more, please.
Not true, the benchmark you mentioned used more memory
512GB memory is used in the one you mentioned.
Now what are the TPC-C costs when you take into account your transition costs between the as is and to be architectures.
How much of that 600K covers the on-going support costs, and are they cheaper than my incumbent supplier, baring in mind that Violin are a niche supplier and Cisco are not noted as being "Low Cost".
Perhaps I'll just wait a few months for mine to catch up and save all the aggrevation and cost.
TPC-C has its rules about costing and what you mentioned are included in all publications from all companies audited by TPC auditors. No one can make TPC auditors to not count any cost required by TPC publications.
3rd lowest? Try sixth...
How do you get third lowest? Right on the TPC-C site there are five Price/tpmC results ahead of this one. You had also better be satisfied with web support since that's all you get.
The five above it on the list all have more (or less) than 2 CPUs.
I have set several world records myself.
My most recent: Fastest American typist sitting in this exact location: 35.583374,139.639524 (18th floor).
Benchmarking is all a GAME!
Exactly, and Oracle actually holds the no.1 price per tpmC
number 1 is 39 cents by Oracle. Oracle holds #1, #3, #5, and #6 in price/performance while SQL server has #2 and #4.
Benchmarking is a game absolutely. Most know this. And often times the environments are tuned for maximum performance and not specifically scaled to run SAP R3 or even Quarter-End Close for E-Business Suite.
However it does provide us a measure - the TPCC code is unaltered. The OS, the DB and the drive configuration have to be disclosed etc. sometimes a bit of yawner.....
The key take away. A two socket server with the appropriate IO and memory configuration can take Oracle's lowest-cost database (standard edition 1) and drive 1 Million Transactions per-minute.
As configured - $600K.
In a give data center, is there a customer that could chunk their massive M9000 platform with Hitatchi USP storage for a 2U server from Cisco Running Linux and a Violin array and run their entire Back-Office application.
I believe it is possible. That is what the benchmarks are for - though some of us in the HW business would prefer you bought the whole kit. In reality it shows that the OS Kernel/Memory Management, IRQ Management and occasionally a TOUCH of NUMA, handle massive through put and work load.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Updated + vids WHOA: Get a load of Asteroid DX110 JUST MISSING planet EARTH
- 10 years of Facebook Inside Facebook's engineering labs: Hardware heaven, HP hell – PICTURES
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- Massive new AIRSHIP to enter commercial service at British dirigible base