After takin' a swig o' grog, Doug Mentohl belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> "Bloor Research once produced a report that slammed SQL Server so much
> that Microsoft had it suppressed"
>
> "Was the report suppressed? Yes. The acid test is looking on Bloor's own
> site. There you'll find an archive that does, indeed, go back to 1997,
> but there is no record of any database scalability report"
>
> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/05/30/myths_legends_nine/
http://www.cbronline.com/article_cg.asp?guid=AC3C6B17-955A-4AB0-BFC8-7C2D6669B6CD
THE REALITIES OF SCALABILITY
17th July 1997
The company summarized its findings by saying, "DB2 running on the
AIX platform is appreciably more scalable than DB2 running on Windows
NT which is, in turn, more scalable than Microsoft SQL Server running
on NT." When either database was subjected to read-only tests the NT
systems scaled better than DB2 on AIX; they showed "near perfect
scaling" with an almost-linear performance improvement as extra
processors were added to the box. But that's cold comfort for
Microsoft because, in terms of absolute performance, both NT systems
were well behind DB2 on AIX. They might, given their superior
scalability, conceivably have caught up with the latter at some
(high) CPU count, but this is pointless speculation given the limit
on NT's ability to utilize a large number of CPUs.
. . .
From the Bloor report: "To use [all four CPUs], when there are over
350 users, invites the possibility of a fatal seizure of Microsoft
SQL Server for Windows NT. The only way that was found to get around
this was to leave one processor free (a '3 + 1' configuration)."
Ouch.
Do we have any comparisons today? (And I don't mean those purchased TPC
"benchmarks".) I'm sure Window's scalability has improved a lot, but
what about SQL Server?
--
Reboot Microsoft.
|
|
