Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition and SQL Server 2000 Advance over UNIX
Microsoft.com ^ | November 11, 2001

Posted on 01/10/2002 6:12:44 PM PST by Bush2000

New Platform Record on TPC-C Non-Clustered Benchmark Test
Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition and SQL Server 2000 Advance over UNIX

Las Vegas, NV – November 11, 2001 - In his keynote address at Comdex today, Bill Gates announced a significant milestone for Microsoft's enterprise platform: a Unisys ES7000, running Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition and SQL Server™ 2000 Enterprise Edition, set a new high-water mark for Windows performance on the prestigious TPC-C Non-Clustered Benchmark test. Auditors clocked this system processing an astounding 165,219 transactions per minute, a new world-record for Windows-based systems. Moreover, at $21.33 per transaction, this result lays claim to the best price-performance of any entry in the top ten performance list, whose remaining systems cost twice as much per transaction on average.

Redefining the Enterprise Operating Environment

Until recently, only UNIX systems could claim a place on the elite top-ten list for TPC-C Non-Clustered (single server) performers. Competition for these spots is intense, and server hardware manufacturers invest millions of dollars and countless hours vying for position. They are often rewarded for this in the marketplace, where enterprise customers rely on the integrity of TPC data as they evaluate new business platforms.

Now Windows is challenging this elite group, and making it hard for proprietary UNIX vendors to justify the high costs of their systems. With the introduction of Windows Datacenter Server on large-scale systems like the 32-processor Unisys ES7000, Windows and SQL Server now have a platform that can be measured against large-scale UNIX systems.

The results have been astounding. With today's announcement, Windows and SQL Server have not only moved to sixth place in the top ten performance list, they have staked a claim to the best price/performance of any system in the group. While the average price/performance of the other top ten performers is approximately $42 per transaction, Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition is the leader at just over $21 per transaction, nearly twice as cost-effective. Windows has begun to shift the economics of large-scale systems as it has done with smaller servers and personal computers in the past.

A Changing Landscape

The performance record of Windows-based systems is growing with phenomenal speed. Windows has long been the undisputed leader for scalability on smaller systems—those equipped with one to four processors. Prior to the release of Windows 2000, Windows and SQL Server held four of the top ten performance records in the TPC-C Clustered benchmark. Today, Windows and SQL Server hold every result in the top ten, including the staggering world-record of 709,220 transactions per minute.

With today's result, Windows and SQL Server now hold two of the top ten performance results on the TPC-C Non-Clustered list—the benchmark that measures the performance of large, scale-up systems like the Unisys ES7000. Once the domain of costly proprietary vendors like Sun Microsystems, today's list includes Unisys, IBM, Compaq, HP, Fujitsu, and Bull—all members of the Windows 2000 Datacenter Server Program. Sun is no longer found on the top-ten TPC-C Non-Clustered performance list.

Sun's absence is not surprising given the effect Windows has had on the economics of single-server systems. A look at the top ten price/performance results on the TPC-C Non-Clustered benchmark shows that Windows 2000 and SQL Server 2000 occupy every record on the list.

Momentum Going Forward

Windows' performance record has been expanding rapidly, in both scale-up and scale-out arenas. The Windows 2000 Server Family and SQL Server 2000 hold world records on SAP-SD Three-tier, SAP-Retail, PeopleSoft eBill Payment, PeopleSoft 8 CRM, Onyx, Great Plains, and Pivotal eRelationship benchmarks.

Today's announcement marks one of the first results published on Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition, part of the next generation of the Windows Server Family. With an impressive base of evidence on Windows 2000 and a glimpse of things to come, Windows is poised to extend its performance and scalability leadership well into the future.

Notes: Today's benchmark result was achieved using a 32-way Unisys ES7000 running Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition and SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. The system performed 165,219 transactions per minute (tpmC) at a cost/transaction of $21.33. The complete system will be available on March 10, 2002, while the Unisys ES7000 and SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition are available today. For more details, see http://www.tpc.org.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last
To: WriteOn
Go find a post where I said "JavaScript executes .vbs files." You're outta your leaque Microserf.

I don't know why I bother with you lightweights but ... here's an excerpt from the JS.Gigger.A article: You made various comments on that thread alluding to how JavaScript was capable of modifying files on the local hard drive. So I asked you... To which you shot off your mouth: There it is, greenhorn, in black-and-white for your reading enjoyment. You think that JavaScript executes .vbs files; hence, your technical cred is zero. Thank you for playing.
81 posted on 01/11/2002 6:30:26 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
"Sayonara," the samurai says as he picks up the head of his now defunct opponent...

Gotta mirror handy?
82 posted on 01/11/2002 6:30:58 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
> cricket <... > cricket <...> cricket <...
83 posted on 01/11/2002 6:36:09 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mj1234
"ask microsoft to build a terabyte database and (have a hardware malfunction)--now recreate that database "

Store the database on a Symmetrix and replicate it with ECC-ERM and it doesn't matter what platform you use. The data is safe.

84 posted on 01/11/2002 6:56:18 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"... unfair tests?" per bush...

Crop dusters outmanuever stealth fighter bombers... doesn't mean I want to use one in a night time bombing raid." Bushman wont get it. Doesn't want to. Does he think any of us are going to consider for one SECOND, his favorite system?

85 posted on 01/11/2002 8:08:33 PM PST by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"... unfair tests?" per bush...

Crop dusters outmanuever stealth fighter bombers... doesn't mean I want to use one in a night time bombing raid." Bushman wont get it. Doesn't want to. Does he think any of us are going to consider for one SECOND, his favorite system?

86 posted on 01/11/2002 8:08:53 PM PST by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: eccl1212
Crop dusters outmanuever stealth fighter bombers... doesn't mean I want to use one in a night time bombing raid." Bushman wont get it. Doesn't want to. Does he think any of us are going to consider for one SECOND, his favorite system?

Why would I ever count on you to make a correct decision?
87 posted on 01/11/2002 8:10:36 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
I copied (and highlighted some of the information on the www.tpc.org website. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the system in the #3 position kick M$ butt in both the tpmC and Price/tpmC categories? It nearly doubles the number of transactions for $.07 cents less per transaction. As a matter of fact, there aren't any M$ entries until the 7th position.

This may be good for the M$ PR machine and for the blind followers of Uncle Bill, but DO YOUR RESEARCH! M$ is not what it always the best choice. I run Linux and ME at home. Solaris 8, Win98SE, Win2K Pro, Win2K Advanced Server, NT 4.0 Server and XP at work. You got to look at what you need and make the wise choice.

Semper Fi,
DataDink

Rank Company System tpmC Price/tpmC System Availability Database Operating System TP Monitor Date Submitted
Fujitsu             PRIMEPOWER 2000 c/s w 66 Front-Ends   455,818  28.58 US $ 02/28/02  SymfoWARE Server Enterp. Ed. VLM 3.0   Sun Solaris 8   BEA Tuxedo 6.5 CFS   08/28/01 
HP                  HP 9000 Superdome Enterprise Server   389,434  21.24 US $ 05/15/02  Oracle 9i Database Enterprise Edition   HP UX 11.i 64-bit   BEA Tuxedo 6.4   12/21/01 
Compaq              Compaq AlphaServer GS320   230,533  44.62 US $ 07/30/01  Oracle 9i Database Enterprise Edition   Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1   Compaq DB Web Connector V1.1   06/18/01 
Fujitsu/ICL         PRIMEPOWER 2000 c/s w /32 Front Ends   222,772  43.42 US $ 06/30/01  SymfoWARE Server Enterp. Ed. VLM 3.0   Sun Solaris 8   BEA Tuxedo 6.4 CFS   04/13/01 
IBM                 IBM eServer pSeries 680 Model 7017-S85   220,807  34.18 US $ 04/13/01  Oracle8 Enterprise Edition v8.1.7.1   IBM AIX 4.3.3   Webshpere App. Server Ent. Edition V.3.0  03/20/01 
*** Bull                Bull Escala EPC2450 c/s   220,807  34.67 US $ 05/28/01  Oracle 8i Enterprise Edition v. 8.1.7   IBM AIX 4.3.3   Webshpere App. Server Ent. Edition V.3.0  05/28/01 
HP                  HP 9000 Superdome Enterprise Server   197,024  32.13 US $ 05/01/01  Oracle8 Enterprise Edition v8.1.7.1   HP UX 11.i 64-bit   BEA Tuxedo 6.4   12/21/01 
Unisys              Unisys e-@ction Enterprise Server ES7000   165,218  21.33 US $ 03/10/02  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition   Microsoft Datacenter Server Limited Edition   Microsoft COM+   11/11/01 
IBM                 IBM eServer iSeries 400 Model 840-2420-001   163,775  51.58 US $ 12/15/00  IBM DB2 for AS/400 V4 R5   IBM OS/400 V4 R5   BEA Tuxedo 6.4   03/19/01 
Compaq              Compaq AlphaServer GS320 Model 6/731   155,179  52.88 US $ 02/02/01  Oracle 8i Enterprise Edition v. 8.1.7   Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1   Compaq DB Web Connector   04/03/01 
10  IBM                 IBM eServer iSeries 400 Model 840-2420   152,346  44.52 US $ 09/15/00  IBM DB2 for AS/400 V4 R5   IBM OS/400 V4 R5   BEA Tuxedo 6.4   03/19/01 

*** - Duplicate results are shown with an asterisk (*) in the Rank column. Click here for more information about duplicates.

©2001 TPC.  All Rights Reserved.

88 posted on 01/11/2002 8:50:57 PM PST by DataDink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DataDink
Wrong. You're looking at Non-clustered performance numbers without regard for price. Sure, I can throw boundless-priced system at the problem and beat the $1M systems. But that's not the point. The point is to strike a balance between price and performance. And that is where the Windows/SQL Server 2000 systems shine. You can find these numbers at http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster. Let me know if this hurts your brains too much ... and I'll use small words so that you might understand...

Top Ten TPC-C by Price/Performance
Version 5 Results

Version 3 Results Print This Page
All Results    Clustered Results    Non-Clustered Results
Rank Company System tpmC Price/tpmC System Availability Database Operating System TP Monitor Date Submitted Cluster
Dell                PowerEdge 2500/1.13/1P   11,314  4.38 US $ 12/14/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edt.   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   12/14/01 
IBM                 IBM e(logo) xSeries 250 c/s   15,533  4.67 US $ 11/05/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edt.   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   11/05/01 
Dell                PowerEdge 2500/1.13/1P   11,320  4.70 US $ 10/31/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edt.   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   10/31/01 
IBM                 IBM eServer xSeries 220 c/s   9,112  4.76 US $ 10/16/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edt.   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   10/16/01 
Compaq              ProLiant ML530-X1000-1P   9,347  4.77 US $ 09/25/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   09/25/01 
IBM                 IBM e(logo) xSeries 350 c/s   20,422  5.39 US $ 10/01/01  Microsoft SQL 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   10/01/01 
Compaq              ProLiant ML570-700 3P   20,207  5.64 US $ 09/26/00  Microsoft SQL 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Server   Microsoft COM+   07/27/01 
Compaq              ProLiant ML570 6/900-4P   37,100  6.36 US $ 11/12/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition   Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server   Microsoft COM+   11/12/01 
Dell                PowerEdge 6400   20,331  6.46 US $ 02/02/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000   Microsoft COM+   03/19/01 
10  Dell                PowerEdge 6450   20,320  6.62 US $ 02/02/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000   Microsoft COM+   03/19/01 

89 posted on 01/11/2002 9:12:46 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: DataDink
Note these results. This is where it gets really bad for the Solaris and Oracle sales guys. You see, the clustered configuration offered by Compaq did 709,220 transactions per minute at a $14.96 cost. That's almost twice the number of transactions as the non-clustered Fujitsu/Solaris/SymfoWARE combination (455,818) at half the cost ($28.58). Do you understand what this means? It means that clustered configs -- scaling out as opposed to scaling up -- kick the crap out of non-clustered configs. The TCO is better. The cost is lower. This is the reason that Sun and Oracle guys are having a tough time explaining to their customers why they should pay twice as much and get half the performance.

Look, I understand why a lot of you don't want to rock the boat. You're comfortable with Unix. There's a certain bigotry against MS in some IT shops. You're afraid of getting fired for promoting a solution that goes against the grain of your pencil-neck bosses. Plus, it's not your money anyway. But, frankly, if you ignore these results, you only have yourselves to blame for paying more and getting less.

Top Ten Clustered TPC-C by Performance
Version 5 Results

Version 3 Results Print This Page
All Results    Clustered Results    Non-Clustered Results
Rank Company System tpmC Price/tpmC System Availability Database Operating System TP Monitor Date Submitted
Compaq              ProLiant DL760-900-256P   709,220  14.96 US $ 10/15/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition   Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server   Microsoft COM+   09/19/01 
IBM                 IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s   688,220  22.58 US $ 05/31/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server   Microsoft COM+   04/10/01 
Compaq              ProLiant DL760-900-192P   567,882  14.04 US $ 10/15/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition   Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server   Microsoft COM+   09/19/01 
IBM                 IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s   440,879  19.35 US $ 12/07/00  IBM DB2 UDB 7.1   Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server   Microsoft COM+   04/11/01 
Compaq              ProLiant DL760-900-128P   410,769  13.02 US $ 10/15/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition   Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server   Microsoft COM+   09/19/01 
IBM                 IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s   363,129  21.80 US $ 05/31/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server   Microsoft COM+   04/10/01 
IBM                 IBM eServer xSeries 370   136,766  16.93 US $ 09/20/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server   Microsoft COM+   04/24/01 
IBM                 IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s   121,319  18.97 US $ 05/31/01  Microsoft SQL Server 2000   Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server   Microsoft COM+   04/10/01 

90 posted on 01/11/2002 9:38:18 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Sorry, but Microsoft needs to work on far more than transaction processing if they want to penetrate this market. I admin more than 200 servers in an enterprise level datacenter, with a healthy mix of NT4, W2K, and Unix servers, and I can assure you that NOBODY who works with servers on this level even takes Microsoft seriously.

Of equal importance to transaction counts is STABILITY. We've got two 64x HP Superdomes (HP-UX), six 12x HP3000's (mpe/IX), two 24x Sun 6500's (SunOS), and so many Windows based 4x Dell and HP servers that I've never bothered to tally them up. We've also got a number of smaller Sunfire servers and generic BSD machines to round out the crowd (no Linux though...hell will freeze before I allow Linux into my server room!)

The biggest problem that Microsoft is going to face in this market is overcoming reliability issues. Nary a day goes by that I don't receive a call from a user complaining about a Windows server that isn't responding, or describing performance problems that force me to drag my butt away from my desk and reboot a server. Our documented average reboot time, per server, is once every 28 days for our Windows machines, once every 42 days for our smaller Unix boxen, and about once a year for the big Unix boxes (and those are mostly planned maintenance outages). This isn't merely conjecture or bias either, we have a policy that requires us to document every reboot or system problem our servers experience. We have totaled the numbers and they conclusively shown that in our real world environment, Unix is more reliable. Our single, dual, and quad CPU Windows servers are reliable enough for feeding files, organizing workgroups, or serving webpages, but they certainly aren't perfect and do go down from time to time.

The thing is, our big boxes CAN'T go down, because they take the entire system (and all 36,000 users) down with them. Our big boxes require 100% uptime, and that's what we deliver. Microsoft may be able to deliver 99% uptime, and that may be good enough for 99% of server applications, but this particular market is one where 99% doesn't cut it. The problem, of course, is that Windows is a GUI driven, single processor OS that Microsoft is trying to thin out and scale up. In the enterprise dataserver environment, however, all of that is just heavy baggage and unneeded points of failure. This is the one environment where the austerity of UNIX gives it a huge advantage. It can be stripped to the barest essentials, virtually eliminating points of failure. I mean, really...why should an enterprise datacenter server be dedicating threads and cycles to the maintenance of a GUI or mouse pointer that don't even need to be there? Why should a server that should NEVER be touched even need a GUI?

Ultimately, it will little matter what Microsoft "proves" with these tests because nobody is going to load a desktop OS, with ZERO track record in this type of environment, onto a server that may have cost between $250,000 and $3,000,000. When you're dealing with hardware on this level, a server crash will usually cost the admin his job, and nobody is going to take that chance just to sooth Microsoft's ego. They'll stick with something proven, reliable, and safe.
91 posted on 01/11/2002 11:00:03 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Look, I understand why a lot of you don't want to rock the boat. You're comfortable with Unix. There's a certain bigotry against MS in some IT shops.

You know, I don't see why I should bother to answer your posts. I've said a number of times that I am not a computer bigot. Many of these other folks are trying to talk to you in friendly tones, too. From what I can tell, all you want to do is make the "other guy" look bad. I'm sick of your attitude and snotty tone. For example, in post number 14 you said:

Can you read? Go over to tpc.org and read the results, if you can. Windows and SQL Server kicked the crap out of every competitor.

This isn't exactly true. You always pay a premium for top of the line performance. I don't have a problem with Window's price point, or having a good price/performance ratio. This has always been the selling point for IBM/Intel and Microsoft/Intel. But performance costs, whether it's a mid or large computer.

The Unisys ES7000 that came in a the good pricepoint was a single 32-processor Pentium III machine with a main memory of 64GB. For $3.5 million you can get a Sun or IBM that performs just as well. But it wasn't the top performer. The Fujitsu PrimePower 2000 that had the good performance was a 128-processor computer with 256GB main memory. It's certianly expensive, but gives you a great deal of computing power in one package.

The absolute top-performing configration from the Intel/Microsoft side was a group of 32 Compaq Proliant DL-760s each with 8 processors. Note that this configuration was nowhere in the price/performance category. All of the configurations in the price/performance categort are an order of magnitude less in terms of price and transactions/per unit time. The configurations in the pure performance category are all state-of-the-art computers in which money is no object.

So if you are going to debate, please try to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. First you were saying that Microsoft beat Unix totally, but then you back-pedaled and restricted yourself to the lower end computers.

The Dell PowerEdge 2500 is a dual 1Gz and 6GB memory machine. The price for the test machine came to about $50,000 total. These Dells are good machines, and I actually recommend them in my job. However, for other things I recommend the Sun 280 series which is similar, with Sparc CPUs (900Mhz) and up to 8GB RAM. This computer comes in more than $50,000, but not that much more. The real factor is what are the needs of the customer.

Clustered configurations don't always "kick the crap" as you so glibly put it, out of non-clustered ones. There are other issues with this set up, like more points of failure, even floor space.

I get the feeling you are looking at these charts and saying one is better than the other, but I do not get the impression you have no experience actually having to choose one over the other. Especially saying things like this:

This is the reason that Sun and Oracle guys are having a tough time explaining to their customers why they should pay twice as much and get half the performance.

This shows me you don't know what you're talking about. I'll say that again, because it bears repeating: I don't have a hard time justifying an expensive computer, my customers know why they are buying. You are just blowing off steam. Bravado. Insulting bravado. The cost of these machines does not end with the purchase price. There are many other factors involved with a major purchase in the multi millions of dollars. Have you actually signed a deal for a multimillion dollar computer, then had to set it up and operate it? I have, being in the oil industry. I also spec out the midrange computers, too. The cost does not end with the purchase price. It never has. There are support contracts, maintenence, what is the expected life of the equipment, who at your company has the skills to make the beast worth the money, has your company committed to a particular platform already, etc.

So in the end, it doesn't come down to that number on the TPC webpage. I don't have a hard time justifying unix to my customers. And you, sir, are full of yourself and full of it. Shape up or ship out.

92 posted on 01/12/2002 12:30:54 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
Thanks for your honest comments. I agree that MS needs to improve reliability. It is my opinion that they are definitely improving with Win2K and XP; however, there is always room for improvement.
93 posted on 01/12/2002 12:15:59 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Many of these other folks are trying to talk to you in friendly tones, too. From what I can tell, all you want to do is make the "other guy" look bad. I'm sick of your attitude and snotty tone.

If you want to be honest and not merely fling ideology -- as many people around here do unceasingly -- fine. I will respect that. I acknowledge that MS has a lot of room to improve in security, reliability, usability, and performance. But I do insist on an honest debate. Merely asserting that your solution is *better* because you say so doesn't cut it -- and I won't cut you any slack if you say so.

This isn't exactly true. You always pay a premium for top of the line performance. I don't have a problem with Window's price point, or having a good price/performance ratio. This has always been the selling point for IBM/Intel and Microsoft/Intel. But performance costs, whether it's a mid or large computer.

And as I showed in my recent post, the clustered Windows transaction performance almost doubles the performance of the non-clustered Unix boxes at half the cost.

So if you are going to debate, please try to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. First you were saying that Microsoft beat Unix totally, but then you back-pedaled and restricted yourself to the lower end computers.

Ah, but as I just told you, MS beat Unix at both the high and low end. The Unix guys simply don't want to look at clustered configurations, though.

The cost of these machines does not end with the purchase price. There are many other factors involved with a major purchase in the multi millions of dollars. Have you actually signed a deal for a multimillion dollar computer, then had to set it up and operate it? I have, being in the oil industry. I also spec out the midrange computers, too. The cost does not end with the purchase price. It never has. There are support contracts, maintenence, what is the expected life of the equipment, who at your company has the skills to make the beast worth the money, has your company committed to a particular platform already, etc.

Compaq, Unisys, and other companies offer support plans which guarantee 5-9's uptime. They will actually reimburse you for lost busines so, consequently, they take uptime very seriously. Even with those costs, the overall package in all likelihood costs less than what the big Unix vendors can offer. The problem, though, is that many IT shops are already dealing with a particular Unix vendor and don't want to incur collateral costs relating to porting a particular database or code from one platform to the other. Plus retraining their staff. In other words, it's safer to stay with what they have than move to a completely disparate architecture such as NT/Win2K. This is definitely a hidden factor in the cost. I understand your points, Classic, and you make them well. I'm simply tired of people misrepresenting what Windows can and can't do. Yes, traditionally Windows has targeted the low end. But with clustering, Windows is capable of meeting mid-to-high-end needs, despite what many in the pro-Unix camp would have you believe.
94 posted on 01/12/2002 12:32:53 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Moreover, at $21.33 per transaction, this result lays claim to the best price-performance of any entry in the top ten performance list, whose remaining systems cost twice as much per transaction on average.

That is the only spot in the entire article that mentions price/performance. The rest of the article deals with the numbers that I posted.

The point I was making was the fact that the numbers mentioned in the article do not jive with the website any longer.

Maybe you should: 1) re-read the article and 2) not skip the big words that are apparently hurting your brain. MS does NOT compare to the high end systems as well as Uncle Bill wants everyone to beleive and your comprehension of the article is skewed as well. Another thing you may want to check out is the date of the article itself - November 11,2001. The HP server I highlighted that beats the Windows server was tested on December 21, 2001, showing how the Unix community has begun to responded to the challenge.

Like I said - I deal with at lot of different systems on a daily basis. Each has its strong and weak spots. You have to look at all the data to make the best decision. If you need a "Datacenter server" for a large operation, Unix (not Microsoft) is the way to go.

For something else interesting - but along the same lines - have a look at the Top 500 Supercompters then look at this site. Take note on the second site how many of the world's fastest 500 Supercomputers are clusters - a lot of them from the Unix houses (Sun, Compaq and IBM)

Enjoy,
DataDink

95 posted on 01/12/2002 3:26:37 PM PST by DataDink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson