New Linux TPC-H Record Set

prostoalex writes: "New TPC-H world record for performance and scalability of database software on Linux platform has been set. The winner - Oracle 10g running on a four-node Lenovo Cluster Server DeepComp 6800, each with four Intel Itanium 2 1.3 GHz processors. Oracle also emphasizes that it's 3.5 times more performance than similar IBM DB2 benchmark. TPC-H benchmarks are available at TPC Web site."

Comments

oracle and linux

[larry bagina]

Oracle walks a dangersous path running on linux. Sure, the money saved by using linux/x86/oracle vs solaris/SPARC/oracle is significant, but linux can be a gateway drug to other Open Source/FREE software. Once PHBs realize that the OS is a commodity, the next step is realizing the DB is also a commodity. Postgresql or mysql isn't suitable for enterprise-level work, but it's more than suitable for small internal projects that used to mean extra orcle seats.

Re:oracle and linux

[nemesisj]

This is not an insightful post. Serious people use Oracle. Poor people use PostgreSQL. If you need Oracle, you will have to use it or DB2 - PostgreSQL just can't cut it on several levels with Oracle, currently.

What kind of marketing garbage is this crap?!

[Hoser McMoose]

Holy crap this story is useless! Go to the TCP-H site and actually look at the results, it really is nothing even remotely impressive.

- It's NOT the fastest TCP-H result, it's the fastest LINUX TCP-H 1000GB result. Actually it's the ONLY Linux TCP-H 1000GB result. 5th of 8 overall

- It's not even offering very good bang for your buck, coming in 5th of 8 for Price/QphH ($156 US according to today's currency exchange). The only systems it managed to beat are two outdated systems (both from HP) and an old price for a Fujitsu system, quoted in euro (the same system offers the same performance but a lower price on a newer entry quoted in US $).

In short, if anything this suggests that Linux is a BAD choice for this work! The performance isn't there and the cost is high.

Where things get REALLY bad though is the claim that this is "3.5 times faster" than a system running IBM's DB2. This is just 100% pure bullshit! The new Linux/Oracle system runs 1.3GHz Itanium2 processors and Oracle 10g. The HP/Windows/DB2 system runs 900MHz Xeon processors and runs DB2 7.2 (8.1 is current version). What's more, the Oracle/Linux system isn't even 3.5 times faster, it's just 3.5 times faster PER PROCESSOR! Great, your brand-spanking new Itanium2 is 3.5 times faster than four year old Xeon 900MHz chips. Whoopie!

Note: if you do want to see impressive Linux results, look at what IBM is doing with their Opteron cluster and DB2 running under SuSE Linux. They turned in the top results in the two TPC-H tests they entered (100GB and 300GB).

Oh but this IS significant

[A nonymous Coward]

The OS is largely irrelevant to speed tests which never swap or do I/O, like generating graphics. But servers show weaknesses in an OS like nothing else, since they really hammer context switches and I/O.

This IS significant. It shows the suits that Linux can handle swap intensive tasks, even tho they don't know that is what it shows.

Better summary

[autocracy]

Sun Micro kicked everybody's ass. Read across the board, they had the cheapest cost per performance and though Fujitsu systems really shined through on the 1000GB test, they're still SPARC architecture and still running Solaris.

Truthfully, I'm not a Sun fanboy (I just think they make cool shiny toys that cost a lot). Despite their corporate issues of late, they can still flex when it comes time to move things. Given any of those system built into a decent cluster (note that no pure Sun solutions were clustered), I think something worthwhile might show up.

Even if you disagree with me on those points though, you do have to agree that the /. article itself just sucked.

Exchange Rate

[charnov]

Sorry, the only reason that this resulted in a new record was because of the artifically controlled exchange rate between the Yuan and the dollar.

Sorry, try again.

Oracle and Open Source???

[markxsd]

As somebody who worked for O$ for many years, I'm interested by Larry's jump into bed with Linux. I'm out of the loop now, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of a "testing the OSS water" strategy. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some low revenue Oracle products (e.g. JDeveloper, Developer, Application Server) being turned open source.

"...but linux can be a gateway drug to other Open Source/FREE software"

For now, I don't think this is a (serious) risk. Oracle has been distributing Apache now for a number of years, for example. If you know anything about the history of Oracle, the success it has achieved is more about sales and marketing than about having a superior (or cheaper) product (remember Ingres??). If you're an CTO for a Fortune 500, are you going to move your corporate databases to MySQL? I don't think so. You are going to stick with the database vendor that's running corporate databases for most of the rest of the Fortune 500. If you're the kind of company that has a budget so tight that you NEED to run MySQL or Postgres for core systems, Oracle doesn't want or need you. Maybe the best weapon Oracle has against MySQL and Postgres is the fact that you are able to download the complete version of Oracle from OTN. There are many unlicenced Oracle implementations around the world as a result of this free download facility.

I'm all for Postgres and MySQL pushing into the enterprise world, but MSSQL should be the first target. If Oracle are prepared to put real money into backing Linux, let's support them...