Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Databases Ranked

prostoalex writes "Winter Corp. has summarized its findings of the annual TopTen competition, where the world's largest and most hard-working (in terms of load) databases are ranked. The results are in, and this year the contestants were ranked on size, data volume, number of rows and peak workload. I wrote up a brief summary of the top three winners in each category for those too lazy to browse the interactive WinterCorp chart."

73 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Google by ScribeOfTheNile · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would've expected to see Google in there somewhere.

    1. Re:Google by tinrib · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't Google use 'big files' rather than a database for storing all its data?

      see http://www.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125-g hemawat.pdf which describes the Google filesystem.

    2. Re:Google by lewp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even if Google qualified, which it probably doesn't due to the methods it uses for its data storage, if I read the article properly the database vendors are responsible for naming the participants.

      Since Google's stuff seems to be developed in-house, they don't have a major database vendor to nominate them.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    3. Re:Google by stripmarkup · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seems that they are comparing relational databases. Search engines use proprietary databases which, among other things, do not allow for live insertion of records, SQL commands, etc. As for data volume, Google (or Yahoo or MSN, for that matter) are probably in the ballpark. The average html page is around 10k. Google probably stores at least 10^9 raw web pages in their cache(that's 10 TB alone) plus a lot of meta information about links to-from many others.

      --
      See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
    4. Re:Google by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about visa/mastercard/american express?

      IMHO some of them didn't want to be in that list.

    5. Re:Google by KarmaPolice · · Score: 2, Informative

      What about visa/mastercard/american express?

      IMHO some of them didn't want to be in that list.


      If you look at "database size", number 4 is listed as anonymous. They probably aren't too interested in telling everyone what database and platform they are using for storing very critical data with.

    6. Re:Google by Wastl · · Score: 5, Informative
      The term "database" is rather unprecise.

      One might see a database as merely a "big file" with mechanisms to access and modify it consistently (and surely, Google has some means to ensure consistency). A big file does not disqualify for the term "database" just because it is not produced by one of {Oracle, MS-SQL, ...} or cannot be queried by the language SQL.

      It is also possible to consider the Web to be a database (of Web sites). Or an XML, BibTeX, dbm, whatsoever file.

      Sebastian

    7. Re:Google by MattRog · · Score: 2, Informative

      A database is any collection of data. A database management system (which is what most people erroneously call a database) is a system of programs (say Oracle/MS SQL) to maintain the data in a database.

      --

      Thanks,
      --
      Matt
  2. My porn database by Trigun · · Score: 3, Funny

    scored a measley 17th. Oh well, time for more surfing.

    1. Re:My porn database by real_smiff · · Score: 4, Funny
      Does anyone actually have their porn in a database (of some sort)? I'm curious whether the "porn database" is just a joke or ... hmm, worth implementing! For all I know, there's already a 'porn-o-base' (tm?) collaborative project on sourcefourge that you're all using - after reading slashdot for a bit nothing would surprise me...

      What are the pros and cons to databasing (sp.?) your porn? - except perhaps, reduced chance of getting a girlfriend, and chance of ridicule, obviously...

      Hey, this is the right place to ask ;)

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    2. Re:My porn database by lonb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I used to run a porn site, RezX.com (about six years ago). All the content, porn included, was served out of a db.

      --
      "Ain't I a stinka..." - Bugs
    3. Re:My porn database by goosman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I started to organize my pr0n with a database, but i found that I was easily distracted by the content.

      Plus 'leafing' through it is half the fun.

    4. Re:My porn database by Oopsz · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about automatically categorize, find, and download?

      It exists, and its open source. Welcome to the wonderful world of porn-get.

  3. SQL Server? by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does the SQL Server mean MS-SQL?

    I would have liked to see SQL vs non-SQL ranking too.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:SQL Server? by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Typical Microsoft calling their product something generic that should apply to any SQL server. Almost like calling a product .. Windows.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:SQL Server? by azaris · · Score: 4, Informative

      Typical Microsoft calling their product something generic that should apply to any SQL server. Almost like calling a product .. Windows.

      It was originally called Sybase SQL Server but was later picked up by MS who adapted the name. Typical /. objectivity.

    3. Re:SQL Server? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you want something that complies with the relational model and relational theory, skip SQL and go directly to IBM DB2 and RPG. SQL as you say is a kludge. DB2 as a language so much reminds me of assembler I tend to liken it to opcode for databases. As you may tell, I'm a big IBM'er.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    4. Re:SQL Server? by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's also this intense stupidity that has prevented us from having a major vendor that actually provides a real RDBMS to this very day. If DBMS people would actually invest a little time in learning about the Relational Model, maybe they'd stop purchasing the crap that Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc. keep forcing out and (flamebait here) maybe people would stop installing MySQL and Access and thinking they're going to be good for anything more important than cookie recipes).
      That's exactly how Larry Ellison got his start - he saw a good idea in an IBM tech journal, hired some programmers to implement it, and the result was Oracle. Why don't you (and the others who post this stuff to database-related forums and threads) go ahead and do the same? Actually write and market a "real relational system based on theory"? Then you could stop yelling at everyone else about it.

      sPh

    5. Re:SQL Server? by azaris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, "SQL server" is a stupid way to refer to a RDBS. That's like calling Apache "perl-server". I'm not surprised the only people chosing to name their RDBS products as SQL-something-or-other are the open source developers and Microsoft. Also I've never heard of MS sueing MySQL or PostgreSQL for use of the term SQL in relation to a RDBS.

      Besides, the product is officially called Microsoft SQL Server and has always been, just like Microsoft Windows, but everybody refers to it as SQL Server or, if there is possibility of confusion, MS SQL Server or MSSQL for short. Is it malevolence on the part of Microsoft if people can't be bothered to use the full name of each and every one of their products?

    6. Re:SQL Server? by MattRog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it is *relatively easy* to make a mediocre (Oracle, etc.) implementation of the Relational Model. It is quite difficult to make a truly Relational Database Management System. Not only that, but because the market is so uneducated why would they want to use it in the first place?

      --

      Thanks,
      --
      Matt
    7. Re:SQL Server? by $ASANY · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The actual story is that in the mid-90's Microsoft bought the source code and rights to Sybase SQL Server 4.9.2 from Sybase, and then sued Sybase claiming that the name "SQL Server" was part of the package that they paid for. Sybase settled the case and relinquished the "SQL Server" name re-branding their OLTP RDBMS "Adaptive Server Enterprise".

      Now MS has overwhelmed Sybase with a derivation of it's own technology that has MS's special additional bugs included for a nominal price, largey because they know how to market and Sybase regularly fails to market it's products effectively.

  4. Spam databases by stanmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how many of the spammers allowed their databases to be evaluated for this list.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  5. Re:No, it's 30,000GB by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're off by 3 orders of magnitude. The largest is 30TB.

  6. No IMS? by John+Harrison · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in IMS? Seriously though, I am surprised that an IMS system isn't on the list. Probably because it isn't relational, and the people making the list figure that RDBMS are the only DB around.

    1. Re:No IMS? by musikit · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in IMS?

      looks like you got a typo in your question there. let me fix it for you.

      I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in MS?

    2. Re:No IMS? by John+Harrison · · Score: 5, Informative
      Google is your friend.

      IMS is the database that was used to keep track of things for the moonshot. It is an IBM product. It is hierarchical as opposed to relational. Because of this it can do certain things very quickly, though in general it isn't as flexible as say DB2. Because it has been around so long, applications where having a DB was really important tend to have bought IMS a long time ago and developed systems around it. If your system is old enough, large enough and still works well for you there is no need to migrate to relational. Most of the world's financial transactions pass through an IMS system at some point. It is very stable and has uptimes that measure in years if not decades by now.

      Because of this I am surprised that it is not on the list. There are really big IMS databases out there that run a lot of transactions. Because it isn't relational there is some bigotry against it and it is ignored in the popular press.

  7. Hmmm by Cenuij · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK so this is obviously only vendors of databases and RDBMS systems.

    In a broader sense aren't such things as the wayback machine a database? What about the truly massive amounts of data gathered at research labs, e.g. CERN. Who's the daddy of these guys?

    --
    my other sig is written in brainfuck ;)
  8. What surprised me... by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have none, nada, zip experience in big databases. But it surprised me that the peak workloads were measured in 100s of concurrent queries. If I had to make a wild guess, I would have guessed 10s of thousands. My blessed ignorance destroyed.

    1. Re:What surprised me... by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have none, nada, zip experience in big databases.

      S'okay, I have plenty :-)

      But it surprised me that the peak workloads were measured in 100s of concurrent queries. If I had to make a wild guess, I would have guessed 10s of thousands. My blessed ignorance destroyed.

      You would typically see tens of thousands (or more) of concurrent connections to a middleware layer - like Tuxedo - which would then multiplex them down to hundreds of connections to the database. This is because there is a lot of latency in establishing a connection, in fact logging in often takes an order of magnitude longer than running an actual query, yet few users submit transactions nonstop. So there is no sense in maintaining tens of thousands of expensive user contexts on the DB server, and there is no sense in requiring intermittent (relatively speaking) users to log out after a short idle period. Middleware does nothing but manage concurrent user contexts, and it can do so very efficiently. A database can't, because it tries to preallocate as much context as it can, and that doesn't match real-world usage patterns, and anyway, database vendors concentrate on their SQL engines and leave middleware vendors to manage the rest.

      Of course, if you are a big database vendor, you probably also sell middleware, but there's no-one who tries to bundle the two into one, any more than you'd want a web server to have its own filesystem.

    2. Re:What surprised me... by Quill_28 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Something is wrong...

      Here I find a knowledgable person on Slashdot,
      Who has given a well-written response,
      Answered the question without flaming the askee,
      Didn't use numbers/symbols for letters,
      Never slammed MS or SCO,

      And was modded up?

    3. Re:What surprised me... by jxs2151 · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's his user #.

      None dare mod down those w/ 4 digits.

    4. Re:What surprised me... by popeyethesailor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I havent read their definition of Peak workload, but I guess it probably means concurrent queries. Even with a persistent connection, shouldnt there be a large number of concurrent queries? With things like parallel querying etc, does the number of connections have to be the same as queries?

      Another factor could be caching; if intelligently used could cut down on the DB workload substantially.

  9. 29 TB is the biggest? by epiphani · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I honestly doubt that 29.2 Terabytes is the biggest database in the world. But anyway...

    I recognize Oracle and DB2, but could someone give a brief synopsis of what the other database systems are? And what is an MPP archetype?

    --
    .
    1. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by Peridriga · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well... if you actually read the article it clearly states that 29.2 is not the largest...

      You can find the link to the article yourself but

      1. AT&T @ 94.3TB
      2. Amazon @ 34.2TB
    2. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by mountainhouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the NCR Teradata approach is one of the most interesting. It is made up of a number of nodes (each quad Intel processor systems with separate memory and disk), each broken down into a number of logical machines. Data is hashed across all the nodes in the systems based on the data's indexing. So if two tables have the same indexing the join takes place at the "logical machine" level, and then the result is spooled together. The largest systems approach 300 nodes, with over 2,000 logical machines and 150 Tb of disk (some used to duplicate tables in case of node failure).

      Personally, it has it's drawbacks, but if the indexing is right, you can join hundred million row tables at amazing speed. Based on my experience in data warehousing, it's performance Oracle can't touch (no, I'm not paid by NCR...just a user).

      http://www.teradata.com

      Overview:
      http://www.teradata.com/t/go.aspx/?id =84960

    3. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by Zocalo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Or if you include Hybrids 828.3TB owned by the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Frankly, I was expecting to see much larger figures than these from academia and large scale research projects, Laurence Livermore for example.

      Obviously data collected from places like Arecibo wouldn't lend themselves to this kind of survey, even though it must be vastly larger, but what about storage of particle vectors from nuclear event simulations? I'm guessing that they were either not nominated or declined to be listed on security grounds rather than don't rate high enough. Does anyone have any figures?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by fritz1968 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a thought: How do they backup a database that is 94.3 TB? I deal with servers that have only a puny 100-150 GB. One or two LTO tapes backup these servers. What tapes to they use to backup this database?

      --
      It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
    5. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by jgerry · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do they backup a database that is 94.3 TB?

      I support very large Oracle databases for a living (very large meaning > 1TB), databases that must be up 24/7. Backups are done in a number of different ways:

      1) Disk syncs, block by block, between disk subsystems at disparate locations, to retain multiple copies of a database in different locations. They can be synced to more than one location too, so you can have as many copies of the database as you want. Your main database is the only "hot" database, the others can be brought up and recovered if needed. We mainly use EMC disk subsystems to do this, the process is called BCV (can't remember what that stands for right now)

      2) Real-time replication. One-to-one or one-to-many. All databases are "hot" at all times. This can be great for load balancing too since you can have multiple system onine at the same time. Very difficult to maintain and monitor.

      Large databases just can't be put to tape anymore. Even if you did, it would take days or weeks to recover them if they failed. Disk to disk is about the only way to provide backups for really large databases.

    6. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by BigGerman · · Score: 2, Informative

      To add to that,
      Standby databases are popular when (in Oracle scenario) the archived log files from your hot production database are constantly automatically applied to the cold standby database in some different location and if something happens to the primary it takes very little time to bring the standby up.
      Also Oracle hot backup is by nature incremental, you can do like one tablespace per night, dont have to do the whole database at the same time (while backing up all the archived log files). I have seen sites where last cold backup was done something like 4 or 5 years ago.

    7. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by Lovepump · · Score: 2, Informative

      BCV - Business Contingency Volume I think. We call it Snap backup'ing.

      When we dump data, it gets dumped to a VTS (that's Virtual Tape system which is a whopping collection of disk, or DASD pretending to be loads of cartridges). Once the data is on the VTS, it then makes it's way to a selection of real MagStar drives which sit behind the VTS system.

      Works quite nicely.

    8. Re:29 TB is the biggest? by AnyLoveIsGoodLove · · Score: 2, Informative

      As someone mentioned: Business Continuance Volumes is local copy within the storage array. Sync times depend on data change rate(dirty tracks). Host does not see any performance degradation. Copies are consistent from app level down, if done right.

      SRDF = Symmetrix remote data facility. is a bcv copy across a link (network, fiber, DS3/1, OCs etc...fill in the blank). Again it only copies any changed tracks....

      Good stuff, this is how most of the Fininacials recovered from 9/11 so quickly...

      The databases then are put to tape using the copies. when the db exceed 24 hour backup time, you use multiple copies in rotation. Usually there's a regulatory reason to go to tape, otherwise people just use disk.

      --
      "It's technical in a psychometric kind a way" -- C. Parish
  10. Switches by Davak · · Score: 2, Funny

    AT&T 94,305GB Daytona SMP AT&T Sun Sun

    I wonder how much of this database is everytime users have switched to and from AT&T to get those cash bonuses!

  11. 94.3TB!?!?! by Peridriga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know where I work we recently (for an IT pat on the back) calculated our total network accessiable storage capacity and came in at a rough estimate of about 150TB. Now that is a giant swarth of data and a decent amount is in databases (MSSQL farm) but, scattered across 1000's of DB's.

    It takes a truely amazing staff to maintain (backup, adminisister, maintence, sit and stare at screens) the servers and maintain the integrity of the data but, good lord...

    A 94.3TB database? My upmost, and highest kudo's to those DBMA's and admins there. That is one gigantic task to operate. Being it's AT&T and assuming a great deal is billing and maintence functions these have to be up I'm sure a good 3 nines if not greater.

    Regardless of the result of the study, which without actually reading the entire study the end results are simply a short-read of a geek pissing contest, I find it truely amazing how much work, man-hours, and midnight pager calls go into maintaining these databases. I know I don't want our DBMA's jobs and certainly wouldn't want to be a DBMA on a 94.3TB farm but, I know those that do and love doing it. It's a speciality skill and apparently these guys do it right...

    Kudos...

    1. Re:94.3TB!?!?! by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Funny
      they always seem to become an entity unto themselves that just *seems* to be under control, when it reality no two or three guys have enough access and enough experience with the thing to know exactly what's there.

      Turns out after AT&T deleted an ex-employee's porn, mp3, and warez stash he was hiding in his own personal table they were able to optimize the database down to about 3GB of customer billing data. You just can't find good help these days.

    2. Re:94.3TB!?!?! by milamber.net · · Score: 2, Funny

      Being it's AT&T and assuming a great deal is billing and maintence functions

      Oh how naive! It may be AT&T but the DB will still be run by a bunch of nerds...

      "Right, boss needs a client list"
      .. login... ok..

      > use bigassdb;
      > show tables;
      games
      porn
      mp3s
      films
      tv
      other

      ..
      "Ok clients must be in here somewhere..."

    3. Re:94.3TB!?!?! by kilonad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a home grown RDBMS!

      What else do you expect from the company that kinda sorta wrote Unix?

  12. Archive.org not on the list? by CompWerks · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They claim to have over 300tb of data.

    Quote:
    "The Internet Archive Wayback Machine contains over 300 terabytes of data and is currently growing at a rate of 12 terabytes per month." Taken from here

    --
    If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
    1. Re:Archive.org not on the list? by Agent+00p · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't have to put all their data into one database, though ...,

      --
      when the shit hits the fan, it is not equally spread
    2. Re:Archive.org not on the list? by bruthasj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All the more proving that you don't need a stupid database for everything. Actually, they should put conventional static filesystems as part of the comparison. Because you know what, some IT people get hooked on trying to dumping everything under the Sun in Oracle. This request is especially relevant for journaling/transaction based filesystems and possibly the future Longhorn thingy where it's got SQL capabilities.

  13. Re:Hang on ... by Mr.+Dop · · Score: 2, Informative
    Nope, you dont even quallify:

    In order to qualify for the TopTen program consideration, any commercial production database implementation was required to feature a minimum of 500GB of data for Microsoft Corp.'s Windows and NT platforms and 1TB of data for all other platforms.

  14. But it doesn't say what OS? by nick_urbanik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I cannot see what OS each DB is running on. Is that irrelevant?

  15. Only on Windows platform! by MS · · Score: 5, Informative
    Read all, to get the facts:

    Lastly, in the Windows OTLP category HP servers were used by 7 of 10 organizations, and Microsoft SQL Server was the DBMS choice for seven respondents.

    Neither WindowsNT, nor MS SQL are generally a choice for the top databases. In fact, to make the entry in this list, a Windows-Database was required to be only half as big as databases on other platforms:

    In order to qualify for the TopTen program consideration, any commercial production database implementation was required to feature a minimum of 500 GB of data for Microsoft Corp.'s Windows and NT platforms and 1 TB of data for all other platforms

    :-)
    ms

    1. Re:Only on Windows platform! by kiwimate · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least they don't try to hide it in three point text -- it's right there on the main page. But, anyway...if you want to see another (MS) view, look here.

      By the way, I must just grumble at the lack of knowledge some people have on SQL Server. I sat in a meeting a few weeks ago with our Oracle-centric architects who decided that, as SQL Server is being used more and more extensively in our company, they'd better understand something about it. They started asking us various questions which rather puzzled me until I thought I knew what the problem was. "You do realize that SQL Server uses transaction logs, don't you? And that it implements transactional integrity, so, for example, will roll back an incomplete transaction?". Blank stares. "Really? Huh, we just assumed it wouldn't have those features because it's not a real database". Well thanks, guys, for doing your homework and being Oracle defensive on the basis of a good solid knowledge of the issues. At least SQL Server doesn't store internal passwords in a table that I can easily run a SELECT query on. Yes, I know they're encrypted -- but SQL Plus is quite happy to allow me to copy and paste the encrypted password into the authentication dialog and accept that as a valid logon.

  16. Anonymous by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not only does Anonymous say a lot of things and write some music and paint, but he also has one of the world's largest databases.

  17. Other factors? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    While it is nice to see the ranking in terms of size and usage, it would be nice if the survey ranked other factors like maintenance time and number of users to see how they really compare in operation. Largest number of OLTP might signify lower downtime but maybe not.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  18. Doh! by Dilaudid · · Score: 2, Funny
    I wrote up a brief summary of the top three winners in each category for those too lazy to browse the interactive WinterCorp chart

    Hmm - how to /. your own website in one simple step?

  19. SMP? by paulbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    does anybody believe that the "SMP" used in reference to the French Telecom DB means "symbol manipulation program" rather than "symmetric multiprocessing"? how are we supposed to take seriously a study (or at least a report about the study) where they just look up acronyms with no understanding?

  20. Doesn't have to be relational by arrogance · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article: "the TopTen Program featured 141 qualified and validated surveys representing 23 countries spanning all major DBMS, server and storage vendor products." So it just has to be a DataBase Management System, not necessarily Relational.

  21. Genomic databases by xplenumx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm absolutely shocked that the NCBI's (National Center for Biotechnology Information - part of the NIH) genomic and proteomic search engine BLAST isn't included in the list. BLAST is consistantly used by scientists worldwide to search the genome of several organizms. I'm similarly shocked that MEDLINE / PubMed isn't included as it's the primary database for searching published scientific literature. When I think of databases, I think of these two sites - not Amazon.

  22. Frightening by water-and-sewer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why am I simultaneously frightened and amazed to note that two of the winners are the United States'customs and border patrol database and Experion's credit rating database? If you've ever checked your credit rating you'd realized this company and its peers (equifax etc.) maintain a tremendous amount of information on you, and charge you to verify it. Finding out why your credit is bad, and in the case of a mistake, changing it, is an expensive and time consuming task.

    --
    If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  23. Re:article also reports that by andyh · · Score: 2, Funny

    This was tested against a live directory with the same number of users and objects each time?

    How was your test environment organised?

    Oh no, you were being ironic, I must pay more attention.

  24. Re:wintercorp climbing up the ratings now.. by Cenuij · · Score: 2, Interesting
    On that note...

    "Experiments at CERN will produce hundreds of TB of data per year at data rates up to 35MB/second starting in 1999," states Jamie Shiers, Project Leader at CERN. "Experience from the use of Objectivity/DB and HPSS on these experiments will help us understand how we can cope with the staggering 100PB of data at rates up to 1.5GB/second expected at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, starting in 2005."

    "The size of CERN's database is bigger than any numbers ever seen," according to Richard Winter, president of Winter Corp., a Boston-based consultancy specializing in VLDBs. "The growing use of non-traditional data types is producing a produce a giant leap in database size. Such databases will soon be commonplace in engineering, commercial, and medical fields as well." concludes Winter.

    big mama db's

    --
    my other sig is written in brainfuck ;)
  25. put things in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    The size of the database isn't all that interesting. What is more important from a maintenance and reliability perspective is size in relation to average and peak loads. Who cares if you have 3Tb of data in MS Sql Server, if it takes you 10x longer to run the same query on TeraData and Oracle. For small databases, who cares. Any of the major database can handle several Gb of data without any problems. But there is a huge difference between TeraData, Oracle, Sybase, Db2 and MSSql Server. Sql Server can't handle concurrent queries worth shit from first hand experience. You have to run your queries in an async fashion and have the clients pick up the results later on. Compare it to Db2, Sybase and Oracle, the scalability factor under heavy concurrent without some middleware in between MS Sql Server blows.

    Obviously, you would be crazy to not use some middleware, but things aren't as simple as any of the PR guys claim. Running queries asynchronously creates a different set of problems and complicates the entire architecture. If you look at the biggest installation, they all use middleware and most of them use Tuxedo. This includes most, if not all MS Sql Server deployments. OLEDB can't that kind of load and neither can standard COM+. Just look read the full disclosures for TPC. You'll see all the MS Sql Server tests wrapped Tuxedo with COM+. As much as Microsoft likes to slam EJB and Tuxedo being too expensive, you can't scale Sql Server without using tuxedo for really heavy deployments.

  26. Databases not ranked by Hungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it interesting that the largest database is only 2TB larger than the one I recently built. It is a medical system. 66 mysql servers bear the load but I only usually have 30 of them actually active as the rest are mirrors and logging masters. Typical connections: 4500 at any given time.

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  27. MasterCard by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I left MasterCard in 1999 after working with their data warehouse. At the time they recently bought a 3 terabyte Sun E10000 with Oracle. They quickly ran out of space and added another terabyte. I'm also surprised to not see them on the list. They work closely with Oracle, who have an office down the street, since they have high volume. Just the credit card transactions table alone gets 14 million new records on average every day.

    I agree that there are many companies who would not want to be in that list. There's a small competitive advantage if you keep what technology you use secret.

  28. pseudo by OgreChow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would be surprised if some government databases, such as Social Security's, would not rank on this list if they were allowed to be analyzed.

  29. Daytona? by wandazulu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is this the first time anyone has heard of AT&T's Daytona? A quick Google search reveals a pdf and 8 links before Daytona becomes Daytona Beach. For such a high ranking, I'd think AT&T would want to make it better known that they have this system.

  30. Re:AmEx by hrieke · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used to work for a company called Epsilon Data Management[1], in Burlington MA. They've been bought since I left them a while ago, but they where the keeper of AmEx customer transaction database for data mining and direct marketing (junk mail and phone calls).
    Big. 7 data silos big. Each silo holds 50k tapes, each tape was 30gb, and it usually took 4 days to load.

    [1] Epsilon was originally an AmEx division, which was spun off to keep other customers happy (banks and other CC companies).

    --
    III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
  31. France Telecom? They must be doing something wrong by bshroyer · · Score: 3, Funny

    My first reaction is that, if France Telecom has the largest (non-hybrid) proprietary relational data storage, at 29 TB, ahead of AT&T and SBC, at around 26TB each, that France Telecom must have a bunch of redundant data lying around.

    As of 2001-01-01, France had a population of about 59 Million. As it turns out, however, France Telecom (FTE) provides services to a dozen countries, not just France. Checking Yahoo! Finance, I see that

    FTE had 2002 revenues of 49B, with 240,000 employees.
    ATT had 2002 revenues of 40B, with 71,000 employees.
    Finally, SBC had 2002 revenues of 43B, with 175,000 employees.

    So nothing terribly unusual about the size of their database. But it's obvious that the French employees are a bunch of unproductive slackers...

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
  32. Re:SMP? by RapaNui · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yup.

    Methinks the character who wrote the article came across the term 'SMP', went to FOLDOC or The Jargon File, and whaddya know - the first hit returns 'Symbol Manipulation Program - Stephen Wolfram's yadda yadda yadda'.

  33. bah, meaningless by kpharmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is like ranking projects based on largest number of lines of code.

    Without system descriptions (like in tcp) it merely shows that such a top-end is feasible.

    What about total cost?
    annual cost?
    time to build?
    software versions?
    hardware?
    staffing composition?

    I mean really, a 500 gbyte database on a modest single CPU server is far more challenging than a 2 TB database on a 64-CPU E10k.

  34. Open Source DBs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since neither PostgreSQL or MySQL showed up in the list (not surprisingly), does anybody know what the largest databases are running either of them?

    I would guess that PostgreSQL maxes out larger than MySQL. </fuel-on-the-fire>

  35. We are larger: 500TB by SilverSun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand their counting. Not that I am happy with it, but we (BaBar) have certainly a much larger database than all of these companies. And, since we also have severl computing farm summing up to several thousand CPUs which process the data constantly, I doubt that they have higher load.

    Press release:

    http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/media-info/200 20 412/database.html

    Cheers

    --

    KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing