Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HP Publishs First Linux TPC-C Benchmarks

Posted by chrisd on from the the-benchmark-with-a-shady-past dept.

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.

2 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Comparable cost between windows and linux cluster by Wizard+of+OS · · Score: 5, Informative
    I did a quick compare and was kind of surprised by the following:
    Linux cluster:
    Total System Cost 2,380,546 US $
    TPC-C Throughput 138,362
    Price/Performance 17.21 US $

    Windows cluster:
    Total System Cost 2,533,095 US $
    TPC-C Throughput 137,261
    Price/Performance 18.46 US $

    Note that the number of clients in the windows tests is higher 24 instead of 16), with smaller CPU's. Also, the server's aren't identical.

    Besides from the small differences in setup, it's plain that hardware-costs greatly outnumber software costs. Yeah, linux has a small bit more performance (less than 1%) for a bit lower price (6%) but these aren't real shocking numbers. Of course, I'll get flamed for not bashing microsoft, but the difference really isn't that big.
    --

    --
    If code was hard to write, it should be hard to read
  2. it's not about not paying for the software by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Using Linux as the server OS is not about getting the OS for free--as you observe, the cost of the OS is pretty much lost in the noise.

    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.