Slashdot Mirror
MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks
Player To Be Traded Later writes: "Robert Cringely at Infoworld reports here on Microsoft's attempts to squash SQL Server 7 benchmarks." In short, when a testing lab came up with far better results for SQL Server 7 under Windows NT than with its much-touted successor Windows 2000, Microsoft decided they'd rather keep the touting nice and quiet.
Microsoft has made a lot of noise about how Windows 2000 is faster than Windows NT 4.0 in their efforts to sell it to businesses that don't really want to upgrade. Denying that this exists without generating some proof that it doesn't won't help them.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Hi, my name's Robert X. Cringely, and this is a completely impartial article.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
My desk dictionary (Webster's New World, 3rd College Ed.) gives the following definition for "squelch": "The act of suppressing or silencing, especially a crushing retort..." "Quash" is given a stronger definition: "To annihilate, destroy...".
I was thinking the jargon "squelch" (as used in audio technology circles), to eliminate signal output that's below a certain threshhold. Strangely, my dictionary doesn't give that definition.
Anyway, the point is obvious: Slashdot would be well served by having at least one professional editor looking at the text before it goes out.
--Tom
Tom Geller
If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too).
Wow what a horrible bit of "evidence" to drudge up, since the same thing happened in reverse when some Linux benchmarks showed it performing worse than NT. The Linux crowd went berserk...
One thing I've learned over the years -- the only benchmarks that matter are ones you do yourself with real-world situations!
If you can't do them yourself, then you just have to take third party benchmarks with a mill of salt.
"And like that
I'm sure MSSQL would go pretty fast on DOS 6.2
Je t'aime Stéphanie
That's very interesting, and appears to be correct (see http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/03ipma.htm, "Statutory exceptions" section). I was under the impression that the entire EULA mess started because a clueless and/or bought judge ruled that loading a program into RAM constituted making a copy. Under that (il)logic, the EULA grants you the right to run the software which you would not otherwise have, and in exchange strips you of fair use rights. But based on 17 USC, you already have the right to run the software, so the EULA removes your fair use rights in exchange for nothing. IANAL, but I thought that a contract without "consideration" was invalid. So even if a EULA is a contract (highly questionable, given there's no communication between you and the manufacturer and no way to prove you actually read and agreed to the terms), it shouldn't be enforceable. Can anybody clear this up?
I'd like to see the EFF take up the EULA issue, of course only after they've finished sending the DMCA back to the bowels of hell from whence it came.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I find it interesting that MS would continue to squash things. They already squash all their competition, now they are squashing their own stuff!
That does make sense.
The whole notion of EULA and shrinkwrap licenses doesn't appear to have been fully tested in a court of law.
I do think it's about time for this to happen.
Then again with UCITA will it really matter?
What most recent round?
As far as I have seen the only web server which has shown higher numbers than IIS has been tux. Not apache.
Apache just has too much overhead to compete in that realm.
the big DB companies all ban publishing benchmark results through terms in their license agreements. This is incredibly irritating because it undermines the free market principle of "perfect information" (markets with "asymetric information" are known to be ineffecient, something laissez-faire Randites never seem to learn).
This would be bad if it were totally true. Oracle has benchmark clauses in its licence agreement. So does MS SQL Server. But DB2 UDB does not - take it, download it, play with it and publish the results. Not being able to publicize benchmark results is a really dumb way to try and tilt the market.
Note: I'm a developer for DB2 UDB so I'm hardly unbiased.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I love to see a Microsoft article go up, then observe the huge disparity in responses. Overwhelmingly, you see the two categories into which everything in the universe can be divided: 1)High school aged rabid Lunix advocates who are drooling all over themselves to get in a slashbot comment for the purposes of karma whoring, and 2)People who have jobs, earn money, and invariably have/want to work with Microsoft products. Granted, not all people who are outraged at this are making the same frothing response, but those of the former who do so are rewarded for their "cleverness" just as well as those from the latter who see that this is both typical behavior for any database vendor and wholly unsurprising to those who know squat about Windows. Of course those who are in their little "Yay Linux" world are predisposed to ignorance on the topic.
How dare you try and subject us to such Consumer Reports drivel!!!
You've hit the nail on the head. We should all politely ask our friendly neighborhood legislators to enact a law protecting the publication of "consumer reports drivel." Consumer Reports performs a very valuable service -- testing and reporting and products objectively (i.e., without any marketing hype or bias for their own pet products). Many people consult CR when buying a car, dishwasher, etc. So why not for software?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
yes, their second test was fair, and revealed problems. I never disputed that. but that first test was essentially rigged in favor of nt, and there's no denying it.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
I really find it hard NOT to have a problem with benchmarking NT as tweaked out as they had it (4 NICs and 4 processors, 1 NIC bound to each processor with separate stacks as i recall) with an out of the box Red Hat installation.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
Yeah, that must be the article, seeing as how it's about NICs and network throughput, which are obviously code words for "SQL Server" and "Windows 2000".
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Hee hee. Netscape enjoyed for a while the benefits of monopoly (if that's the word people want to use). But like all monopolists, they got fat and lazy and some upstart came along and made a better product.
The same thing is happening now to Microsoft and its monopoly (if that's the word). They got fat and lazy. And along comes the upstarts with Linux, BSD, Konqueror, Mozilla, KOffice, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, Eazel, yada, yada, yada.
I have no problems with "natural" monopolies. They got there because of the market, and the market is all too willing to take them out if they get uppity. Soon you're going to see Microsoft dissatisfaction hit critical mass and hell's going to break loose...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
So? Don't use their software! Is it that difficult of a concept?
Your freedom is up to you, and you alone. But beware, freedom is not convenient and easy. It is difficult and irksome.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Saying it's "slower" isn't that accurate:
That aside, everything isn't perfect with the P4: It really needs a silicon shrink, and going with RAMBUS hurts it badly. It's by rambus, it's expensive and you could get as much performance by using DDR SDRAM and/or multiple memory interfaces. It's also rather expensive - I just bought myself an Athlon, and is happy with that.
yeah, i guess i've never considered the free ones "companies", but you certainly have a point.
there is a tendency in free software and open source along the lines of "BRING it on -- find the problems -- we'll fix 'em" that is kind of refreshing.
i try to bring that spirit with me to my meetings...
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Under standard copyright law, something like benchmarks is considered fair use, and is thus not subject to asinine click through agreements. If something is not covered by copyright law, it cannot reasonably be covered by click through
Click-through is like any other contract. Once you agree to it, you are bound by it. The agreements already waive your first sale rights. If you waive fair use, you waive fair use; such are the terms of the agreement. If you don't like it, tough beans. Use free software instead.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
markets with "asymetric information" are known to be ineffecient, something laissez-faire Randites never seem to learn
Eh? The correct term is "Randroids." Randroids, like communist pinheads, coffee-shop liberal-arts 'revolutionaries' and James Carville,
have it all figured out.
Then, there's the people who read Rand and think about it, and realize that when she wrote, don't accept things on faith; think about them yourself she was talking about objectivism as well.
There's a great bit in the Illuminatus! trilogy about a painting, showing God looking down and pointing his finger at the viewer, with the legend, "Think for yourself, Schmuck!"
And, if you stop to think for yourself, you'll realize that markets without information are not "free markets" but "captive consumers" and possibly "old-time snake oil fraud."
David Brin has a semi-good book called The Transparent Society, where he discusses why people tend to always think that reducing information flow will fix their problems, when, quite often, increasing information flow is actually what needs to be done. He also discusses the notion of "reciprocal transparency"; meaning, when you must disclose information about yourself to another party, demand a reciprocal disclosure. For instance, you can go to sites like 123nc.com and look up people's criminal records; I think that that could be fine, but whenever someone accesses my records (if I had a criminal record), that I should recieve free written notification on a standard form of who accessed what, when. Same thing for credit agencies -- when someone runs a credit report on me, I get notification of that fact, and maybe even a copy of their credit report to boot. At their expense, of course -- they initiated it!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Here's a nice example of the bloat for y'all. Try those benchmarks on a properly configured system.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does the Ford accelerate at 9.8m/s^2?
:)
When dropped from an airplane, yes. After all, the Fuckers only run downhill, there's no bigger hill than straight down, and those Ford fans like for their cars to run fast!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Weird, 'cuz the Linux and BSD marketshares are also on the rise. Before you know it the combined marketshare of all platforms will be 568%!
There's lies, damn lies and statistics. Yournumbers don't include some important information. Like how the total market has grown. I suspect that their increased marketshare is due to brand new computer users, rather than 30 year Unix veterans switching over to Windows. Brand new computer users don't choose Linux. They choose what the majority of their neighbors are using.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
How is this any different than a totalitarian regime (i.e., China) monitoring the news and only allowing certain material that they deem "suitable for public consumption" to reach the masses? Microsoft has long said that their products are superior to their competition (Oracle, IBM, Linux, etc.) This type of censorship is stomach-turning. Come on, Microsoft, if you really believe your own press then there is no reason to supress the rights of free individuals in a free country to honestly and independently evaluate your product.
If Microsoft can really demonstrate that the testing labs methods are flawed, and that the benchmarks they publish are useless, then fine.
Hi, where would like to go today?
What is that you ask? Are we the best product for you? How do we rate against others? - Trivial questions my friend, for we are the Bor..i mean Microsoft and Resistan..er, our products are Right For You (C) no matter who you are.
Did i mention that we are the biggest software company on Earth? How dare you try and subject us to such Consumer Reports drivel!!!
Sincerely, Bill Gates
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
The PHB's and People In Charge will be unaffected anyway, since they'll just go ahead with whatever "Solution" Microsoft forces on them, regardless of merit or test results. Even if this got a great deal of publicity, I don't see it changing anything on either the pro- or anti-MS sides, because both camps already have their mind made up (or had it made for them by the software licensing their company has agreed upon).
Plus, we've seen such reactions to benchmarking results from MS before, and it didn't really seem to affect their market share...
props to all dead homiez
But you were implying that Microsoft was having trouble because of the KDEs and GNOMEs of the world. How do you reconcile your statement with the fact that they're increasing their desktop marketshare? (For the record, the two closest competitors were MacOS at 4% and Linux at 1%.) And BSD? Come on.
Cheers,
Typical Microsoft response. If someone else has a technology that could damage them, they buy the company and hide the technology to collect cobwebs. If they don't like a company, they browbeat them into the ground(prime example, Netscape). If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too). If the test results come back bad, MS should see it as where they came short this round, but to accept and try to fix in the future. Learn from your mistakes, don't cover them up and lie about the matter.
They've only gone from an 89% desktop marketshare to 92% over the past year. Not only that, but they've only gone from a 38% server marketshare to 41% over the past year! Those poor bastards!
Cheers,
Keeping quiet about statistics is the best way to lie about them - This is just the same as the old toothpaste advertisments, that 'made 9 out of ten children have fewer fillings' - The results that the toothpaste company did not want seen were simply filed quietly out of sight. Companies releasing desired stats (and witholding undesirable ones) is nothing new... Its a simple fact :) There are lies, damn lies and then statistics; or in this case, Benchmarks :)
You make some good points, except there are java VMs for cell phones, and Amiga is the name of a computer as well as a company.
The main thing wrong with the (3) sentances is that their "astute" readers are wrong on several levels, first - just because something is meant to be platform independent doesn't mean it is, secondly there is no such thing as a platform independent language. It's the instruction set and the operating system that matter - Java is platform independent by virtue of the fact that it runs on a mini OS (which it calls a VM) that has been ported to run on other OSs. The other side is the instruction set, and it's quite possible that the VM hasn't been optimized for P4 yet, ie the VM optimized for PII architecture runs very slowly on P4, which is probably what the Intel exec meant - that would be interesting news.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Actually, the point is; thats what 'commercial support' is worth.
Pay loads for incompetent support that cant help you and who will then proceed to threaten to sue you if you tell anyone how bad the products are.
And if you cant switch support vendor, well, congratulations. You lose.
For example, compare the top result (Compaq/Win2K/SQLS2000) with the fifth result (IBM/AIX4.3.3/Oracle8.1.7). Both systems cost around $10M. The Compaq cluster scores about 2.3 times higher than the IBM system. The Compaq cluster is 24 8x700MHz PIII Xeon servers (192 processors). The IBM server is a single 24x600MHz RS64 IV (24 processors). With that sort of hardware disparity it is impossible to make any judgement on the software performance at all. The Compaq setup has much better price performance but you can't attribute that to the software. The second place DB2 cluster you mentioned is a 32 machine 4x700MHz PIII Xeon setup (128 processors) and scores much closer to the Compaq setup which also points to hardware as being the major factor.
The most interesting bit is that the software for the Compaq setup costs just over $3M, with the software for the IBM system being under $1M. Virtually all the software costs are in the DBMSs. If you have license 192 copies SQL Server is not cheap.
So you have a new OS out that you want everyone to run. Would you want a benchmark coming out that says your old stuff is better. I'd like to point out that this article talks about SQL7. SQL 2000 runs MUCH better on Win2k than it does on NT4.
SQL7 was written to take advantage of NT4, not Win2k. I can't say that the test results OR Microsoft's actions suprise me much.
A speech...
Also, it depends on how they had their Win2k box set up. Active Directory is a mess and could be slowing it down along with a bunch of other services that come with it by default that weren't part of NT.
Highlights:
A recent study by Tolly Research, the independent testing arm of the Tolly Group, found that Windows NT delivers Gigabit Ethernet throughput equal to or better than Win 2000. Tolly's finding contrasts Microsoft's testing that found Win 2000 optimized to deliver gains in Gigabit Ethernet throughput.
Microsoft officials say Tolly's conclusions are not a fair comparison, citing variables such as client operating system, network adapters, LAN design, traffic-generating tools and methodologies.
Tolly says Microsoft's throughput numbers may be inflated by the NTttcp packet-blasting tool it used and by testing on a highly segmented LAN. Microsoft officials admitted their LAN had two clients per segment.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
If such clauses were legally binding, every software publisher in the world would use them to exercise editorial control over reviews and comparisons that were unfavorable to their products. There would be no negative reviews of software and comparisons would disappear. The reason that this did not go to court is that Microsoft knows that they don't have a leg to stand on.
The software industry is in a precarious position. On the one hand, they are attempting to get UCITA passed, which would make shrink-wrap licenses binding. On the other, if it becomes apparent that they are putting unfair and overly restrictive clauses in their licenses, UCITA would be doomed and the validity of software licenses in general could be threatened in a court battle. Or, they could realize their worst nightmare: the courts could decide software was a product. Then the no-warranty, it-may-not-work, it-might-not-do-what-we-claimed crap would be worthless. Software vendors would be under the same standards as vendors of any product and would be forced to recall products and correct flaws rather than sell you updates.
can you give me performance numbers for Apples vs. Apples
Let's just say they're slightly better than Oranges.
Does my bum look big in this?
Ahh, I see. So clustering is bad if it's Microsoft doing it, but the best thing since sliced bread as long as it's not Microsoft. After all, we are at the site that's had so much gushing over Linux clustering that "Imagine a Beowulf of these!" became a running gag.
Also, there are some pretty large holes in your logic based on what appears in the TPC-H list. Since Oracle didn't even make the list at all, your logic would also follow that "for large enterprise work, Oracle just doesn't appear to work." Pretty silly stuff.
Cheers,
It should be noted that for whatever reason, be it MS backing down or the company discovering they could publish it legally, the results ARE online.
In other words, MS didn't win that particular round.
They didnt try to squash the benchmarks when they were done against different OS's atleast. ITs Win NT and 2000. 2000 is pretty new and they are still tuning it up, so give them sometime and they would have it running better than NT. But how about the Oracle One Million AD. If you havent heard of it, then atleast go to some website where they have put up this ad which is so much bs about nothing.
Rapid Nirvana
News at 11, Microsoft enforces same license that every other database vendor uses. AFAICR, no big time database vendor would allow you to publish benchmark results, not just Microsoft. Now if they were going to allow the results to be published if the Win2K box beat the NT4 box, then you may have something.
Besides, they left out way too much detail to get in a fuss over. Like maybe the NT4 box was a 4 way P4, and the Win2K box was a P133 overclocked to 166 MHz and with flaky 32MB simm. They never state that the same hardware was used.
While I have never been accused of being in Microsofts corner, they are in the right on this one and we have seen darn near every major* database vendor pull the same stunt.
*For some definitions of major.
That may be true, but it's generally assumed that upgrading the HW or OS would therefore result in an increase in performance. This demonstrates that NT to Win2k isn't a vertical upgrade, it goes a little sideways too.
Which is ok. It's not something that should be hidden, and certainly not something that should be censored with the threat of lawsuits based on bogus EULAs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Wasn't there a law passed not long ago (it may have been the DMCA, I'm not sure), that said something about publishers having the right to force negative reviews of sites? Granted this is an "objective" benchmark (I know theres no such thing as an objective benchmark), but with a good enough lawyer, I would think MS would have a legitemate case.
So while W2K is a good OS (I personnaly use it for my desktop), for large enterprise work, SQL Server just doesn't appear to work.
So, how are they doing on the need to regularly bring the db down for vacuuming?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You're pretty close. The status of binaries as copyrightable was in doubt in the seventies, I understand. So EULAs were a way to prevent people from running wild with the things; they had to agree not to as a precondition to get it. Once all software was definitively granted the ability to get a copyright under basically the same constraints as anything other copyrightable work, EULAs had to take on a new function. Rather than protect publishers from users, they now had to grant users permission to make copies of copyrighted works. Without that statutory exception it is indeed murky as to whether the copies that have to be necessarily made to execute it are fair use. They pretty much are, we know, but it would take some time for the judicial system to arrive at that determination too.
But with the statutory exception and the ability to obtain a grant of copyright in place for binaries, EULA's are generally moot. Both sides are protected by law. The additional questions of the validity of the things in general makes their continued existance even less sensible.
I still feel that the best course of action is to not agree to 'clickwrap,' as they would seem to be the most enforcable of any of the EULAs possible, and to install software manually. One would hope that third party installer programs and scripts would appear on the scene, but most people do consider it easier to ignore the EULA and not really agree, so there's not a huge market.
One court case to work out the details would not be advisable unless it went all the way to the top. Better to have several cases going through the system to help build precedents. (which hopefully, would be favorable, not that the lower courts are on our side these days)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Uh.... is it just me or has everyone here been tricked by the almighty Microsoft marketing machine? Lets all remember that Win 2K is actually nothing more than NT5. In fact a lot of the third party programs I run will report that when you query them for OS stats. Sure they took NT 4 and did a lot of work but the core of the OS is still NT. Repeat after me, Win2k is the upgraded version of NT4.
Based upon how Win2k performs on my box I'm not surprised by these results though. It is considerably slower than NT 4 was on a slower machine I was using before the upgrade. Considerablly slower. However it doesn't need to be rebooted after lunch everyday to reclaim all the leaking memory like NT4 did. That's a plus. Lets be realistic here, Microsoft has never been known for caring too much about optimizing for speed, they always go for features features features, meaning bloat in some cases but always meaning you will need a lot more machine to run it properly than the previous version. I guess it has worked well for them in the past although people seem to be getting wise lately.
I know that many of these responese are simply trolls, but it really amazes me that the marketing principle of changing a name really works, even on people who are fairly techinical. I guess they really do know what they are doing.
MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks
How about a little clarity here. What is this supposed to mean? Did Microsoft try to beat MySQL benchmarks? Maybe they tried to beat their own numbers? How about:
MS suppreses SQL Server benchmarks
or something else that actually comminicates the meaning of the story.
I recall one test where MS had lined up three or four of its OSes and ran benchmarks, with the obvious marketing goal of "proving" that their latest OS was the best.
Except that they specifically instructed the testing lab to disable direct memory access for (I think) NT, it order to make it run way slower.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Were S/390 machines banned from this test? SQL Server 2000 on shitty x86 hardware beating DB2 on the best platform for I/O. I don't think so.
I know it's in their license, but I have a serious ethical problem with a company being able to control "independent" reviews of their products.
I believe that it's only reasonable for a company doing product reviews to allow the vendor to respond. If Network World puts up a review saying that SQL is slower on NT5^H^H^HWin2000 than on NT4, Microsoft should not be able to kill the review. They should be able to respond, and Network World should post the response along with their review. That's called responsible journalism.
As a software consultant I've worked for several fortune 500/1000 companies and most had both MS SQL Server and Oracle or DB2 or who knows what. In EVERY instance it was NEVER the MS SQL Server handling the lifeblood transactions. The MS product was always handling table lookup and transitory information that was precursory to the real business transactions. This is how I gauge the real status of a database product. What do you trust it to do. Who cares how fast it is if you'd never put your business in its hands.
- Sig this!
Until some old lady in her Volvo makes a mistake and you spend several months in traction. I used to be a biker until it nearly happened to me. I'm self-employed, I can't afford loads of time off (the insurance only kicks in after 13 weeks :-( ). My Fiat Coupe Turbo isn't quite as fast as a bike, but only supercars can beat it and I'm not at the mercy of the elements and the moronic drivers in my area.
They definately revealed some real problems in a second test... I wonder how MS vs Linux would do in Round 3?
A series of tests covering different hardware configurations...
1) Single processor File/Print/Web/FTP server
2) Dual processor
3) Quad processor
4) Oct processor (we do claim to do eight with 2.4... right?)
I'd be real curious how 2.4 stacks up to the Y2K bug... I mean Win2K
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Whoohoo Microsoft have produced a fast and stable OS. Shame we've had to put up with 26 years of garbage before they finally managed it. Dissing Linux is silly. If Linux wasn't snapping at Microsoft's heels nothing would have changed.
Seriously, it looks like w2k has got a bad case of software bloat. But we should make sure that everyone knows what MS is doing. Just so that people get the appropriate warm and fuzzy feeling.
After all, it is NOT a bug. it is a feature.
For those interested, here is a link to the original benkmarks
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Wow, how much did Sun pay you for that particular sales pitch? Maybe Sun would've been better off spending the money trying to figure out why those "rock solid" machines of theirs keep crashing.
"Squelching open discussion," eh? :)
Cheers,
I find it a bit interesting that the article has no link to the websites of the testing lab or the actual benchmark result...
So where is it?
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
Slash should do it.
My guess would be that MSSQL7 uses some system calls that are "native" in NT4, but are some kind of backwards-compatible kludge in W2k. If that's the case, it would make perfect sense that MSSQL7 would be slower on W2k, but MSSQL2k would be comparable.
But then, why would they? I should point out that there are java versions of the java compiler. I think jdk 1.1 used to ship with a java compiler written in java. So, if it fits in the memory of a cellphone, it can run there.
Jilles
Of course that's hardly a ringing endorsement. "You can't get the best results with our new OS because the wonderful new features we're advertizing so much slow things down." The argument about Win2000 needing SQL2000 is plausible, but you do have to wonder whether it's really a good idea to be running software that's so dependant on the OS to get peak performance.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Wow, you're a pro at making up statistics. I got my numbers from IDC. Seeing as yours are completely fabricated, I know you won't be able to cite any sources. But since I'm such a nice guy, I'll give you the opportunity to list them now. C'mon, we're waiting — I'm always up for a good laugh.
Cheers,
The past couple of weeks have not been good for Cringely.
First the claim that Adobe Framemaker was going away, then Java won't run on Pentium IV, then this?
But then it is just a rumor column, and you can't believe everything you read.
It'd be nice if the actual NetworkWorld article was available somewhere to understand the specific issues.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Imposing on the users a gag order on performance issues is a pretty clear indicator that the company's performance claims are fraudulent.
There should be conusumer protection legislation that prevents such clauses in EULAs.
btw, Rambus has a similar clause in its licensing contracts.
I work with SQL 7. We ran into some severe performance problems when we cranked a lot of transactions at it over ODBC. We found it to be slower than SQL Server 6.5, although some backwards compatibility prevented us from doing a real "apples to apples" comparison.
Also, our app runs a lot of CPU intensive transactions. SQL Server 7 is self tuning so we provided REAL slow service to our customers for a day or so while SQL 7 figured out what we were doing to it. We knew where the hot spots were, but were powerless to fix the problem because SQL Server 7 is more "user friendly".
Maybe MS did better with 2000? I don't care to find out. When PostgreSQL in a fault tolerant cluster starts to become more mainstream, I'm going to start looking at moving that direction.
What's going to happen when a windows XP comes out? Oh I get it you have to upgrade your database server too.
War is necrophilia.
I've watched the Slashdot community turn from all Linux to almost pro-Microsoft. I think fuddled attepts at MS bashing have turned into a spin doctoring that is very MS-esque.
The Kerberos thing, they try to sue people who publish their Kerberos specs, so they link them on Slashdot. Then they try to sue Slashdot. Then, they simply open their specs and we all see there was nothing worry about. (One could suspect them as baiting the community but I won't.)
Earlier there was MindCraft benchmarks, where NT whooped Linux. Well, as many first started attacking MindCraft for being skewed, they opened their process and showed that infact it was skewed --but not at least in the ways that the community had accused them of! (One could suspect them of baiting the community but I won't.)
Now we have MS apperantly squelching benchmarks on their SQL servers. Slashdot gets up in a riot, while many people point out that SQL 7.0 was ment for NT 4, and the 2000's were meant for each other.
Again a nice simple answer that could leave the community red-faced. On close examination however, we consider then what MS is doing in the first place? If MSSQL+ windows 2000 was faster than SQL 7.0 + NT4.0 then there is no to do. Such a benchmark would encourage a double upgrade rather than one! More money right?
So I take issue with those trying to come to MS's aid on this one. Do they understand what the real issue is? Its not MS's evil ways or kangaroo trial by community. Its simply that they should continue to be open and let their users figure it out for themselves.
good plan. you can upgrade your OS, but you'll need to upgrade all your other software if you don't want everything to slow down horribly. Would you like the undercoating with that? These OSes will rust up on you in an instant! How about the "protection plan?"
Something is definitely fishy with their hardware if Win2K is twice as slow as NT4. I've run both servers with SQL7 intensively. You couldn't pay me to move back to NT4. 2000 isn't all that much faster, but it is much more stable and its a lot easier to use and administrate.
Want some real benchmarks? Try here. Notice a pattern? SQL Server is the fastest database server in the world. Not only that, but Win2K is in the top four slots. 2nd place is a DB2 server on Win2K. Here are real, industry standard tests performed by an independent organization, not a company with an agenda to promote or magazines to sell.
I'm not sure what the point of this article is, other than to stir up more mindless MS-bashing. Well, Timothy, maybe you should try SQL Server or another real database. Pretty much every day around noon we get the same problem because Slashdot can't handle displaying stories while lots of people are posting. A real database would do wonders to fix that.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
The closest artcile I can find is this one, and it compares the throughput of Gigabit Ethernet on NT vs W2K??
It kind of match Cringely's story:
Further proof that /. will print anything?
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
A click through is not Law... click-throughs have all the legal binding of any other un-signed, un-witnessed agreement: none at all.
Big-money software licenses (such as Oracle and MSSQL licenses) often require a written contract that has all the consideration and everything, to the effect: "You give up $50,000 and the right to reverse engineer this software and publish benchmarks in exchange for the right to receive this software (we're not giving you the disc until we receive your signature) and use this software in commerce."
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
as i recall, neither MS or Oracle are very enamored with third party benchmarks. the only time they *don't* threaten the publisher is when their product "shines".
the results are just too easy to skew, and the real-world loading is tough to accurately model.
i'm trying to learn Oracle on linux -- it's pretty cool the way I can legally install a free OS, then download oracle 8i enterprise for personal use.
"oratcl" is now on sourceforge, and php3 has gtk+ bindings for standalone applications (but works great through a browser, of course).
it's a great time to learn about databases...just don't publish those benchmarks!
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Under standard copyright law, something like benchmarks is considered fair use, and is thus not subject to asinine click through agreements. If something is not covered by copyright law, it cannot reasonably be covered by click through.
This is also the case in Europe, where, for example, you are legally allowed to resell Microsoft OS licenses. It is the only way to interpret copyright law wrt software that makes sense.
Oh, silly me. Who expected M$ to make sense ?