Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!cello!renglish From: renglish@cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: TPC-B - is this really progress? Message-ID: <1991Mar27.211436.12985@cello.hpl.hp.com> Date: 27 Mar 91 21:14:36 GMT References: Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs Lines: 24 jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: > I notice a number of vendors, such as Sun and (given a recent > comp.arch posting) DG, concentrating on TPC-B benchmarks, rather than > TPC-A. With all due respect to the TPC folks, who do appear to be > trying to make the world safer for benchmarking, isn't this the same > deal we had before with TP1 (the TPC-B precursor) benchmarks? The two measure different things. TPC-A numbers measure the actual performance you would get if you built a local automatic teller network with thousands of terminals. It's basic premise is that it doesn't make sense to claim 10,000 TPS, unless your system can support 100,000 users and unless you price it with 100,000 terminals and terminal connections. That is not necessarily what people use their systems for. In addition, TPC-A numbers are difficult to get. It takes many runs, using lots of equipment, to get an accurate assessment. For systems not intended for the marketplace described above, this level of effort is difficult to justify. --bob-- renglish@hplabs.hp.com The opinions expressed here may not reflect the views of the Hewlett- Packard Co., its shareholders, its executives, or its more competent engineers.