Slashdot Mirror
HP Publishs First Linux TPC-C Benchmarks
The first ever official TPC-C benchmark on a Linux system has been published.
This was run on a cluster of 32 HP servers with Intel Xeon CPUs, running Redhat Linux and Oracle RDBMS. The system had over 18 terabytes of storage, and cost over 2 million US dollars. Performance was higher than a similar system running on MS Windows.
On the other hand, the difference in performance is 17.21 vs. 18.46, i.e. approximately 6%. I think that the result is inconclusive (except that Linux can complete in this area at all).
If you really want to compare 2 operating systems, you should rule out as many factors as possible. The windows cluster was set up differently (it had less memory, for example). I would guess that on the same hardware, the difference would be even less...
I do not hazard a guess, but it is surely interesting what Linux can do best, instead of comparing it to Windows, only.
As many other people have pointed out, the system configuration was vastly different despite being 'similar' - yes, I want to see Linux out perform Windows but I would rather see it run on identical systems! When benchmarks are weighted like this, it just makes Linux look like the inferior product which is not the kind of image it should be getting for itself!
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
The Windows TPC benchmark was on last years hardware (IBM xSeries 370, released last year).
The Oracle TPC benchmark is on next years hardware (HP ProLiant DL580R - not available till May 2003).
Crowing about how performance is higher under Linux is FUD. It's not a fair comparison. Or didn't the story submitter understand that hardware always affects performance?
The reason to use Linux is all aspects of its openness and compatibility with other systems. With Linux, you aren't locked into a single vendor. You use tools and APIs that have been around for nearly two decades and are available, in multiple implementations, from dozens of vendors. And you control how you upgrade, when you upgrade, and what path you follow with the software. And if you don't like Linux anymore, you can switch to any of a dozen other, compatible platforms.
With Windows, you are locked into a single, proprietary implementation and Microsoft has you by the proverbial precious body parts; there is no other vendor you can get a compatible implementation of Windows or all the Windows libraries from. Every couple of years, Microsoft completely changes their computing paradigms to ape what they perceive is a threat from some other company, and when the threat is gone, they just drop the initiative and move on to the next thing.
You can get stability buy paying a premium to a company like IBM, which is committed to providing it, or through open systems available from multiple vendors or open source, where you control your future. But building a large, long-lived infrastructure on Microsoft platforms is a costly folly--the company has proven that they will change approach every couple of years and that they will force their customers to move along.
Clustered TPC-C benchmarks are of dubious value. I've yet to encounter any business that implements an OLTP system like this and it's for a good reason. Clusters of this sort are very difficult to implement and operate. You basically end up having to physcally partition your database across dozens of servers!
.NET...it would be interesting to see how Linux compares.
a il .asp?id=102072201
What I would love to see is Linux TPC-C benchmark running on a 8 way machine. Particularly the IBM x440. It scored 91,000 + tpmCs running Windows
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_det
> Yeah, linux has a small bit more performance (less than 1%) for a bit lower price (6%) but these aren't real shocking numbers.
Huh? The cost of the Windows software adds $150K more. That is a lot of money. Think of it this way: if I have two laptops studded with diamonds that cost 2.3 mil each (before the OS is installed), and the OS for one is free while the OS for the other is 150K - the latter seems very expensive when you look at the software budget
I think that you should break out the costs of these systems and look at the hardware and software seperately. "The systems cost the same in hardware, but there is a $150k difference in software." is a much cleaner analysis.
The Windows benchmark is running on a DL580 as well. That being said, your statement is valid. The systems are NOT identical. Click on the executive summary links at the bottom of each and you will see the detailed hardware specs for each.
Also, the clients are not only different in number, but the Linux clients are running a faster CPU as well (1400 Mhz vs. 1000 Mhz).
The only conclusion I think we can draw is that Linux plays "in the same ballpark" as Windows, performance-wise.
I'm not bashing you, I just don't see your point.
If you get a car for 20000$ at dealer A and the same car for 19500$ at dealer B, will you say "Hey, it's just a small difference" and buy from dealer B?
Let's not forget, this is about database-servers here and both run the very same database (Oracle). The underlying OS is irrelevant, you don't have to run MS Office or "the Sims" on this thing.
So please tell us stupid Microsoft-bashers what is your point.