Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!voder!blia!blic!miket
From: miket@blic.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Database Machines
Message-ID: <111@blic.BLI.COM>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 14:48:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: blic.111
Posted: Mon Jun  8 14:48:51 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jun-87 02:20:58 EDT
References: <2700@blia.BLI.COM> <851@rtech.UUCP> <2042@utah-gr.UUCP> <863@rtech.UUCP>
Organization: Britton Lee, Los Gatos, CA
Lines: 48
Summary: The 'correct' mix of special purpose hardware and software probably] depends upon the performance objective.

Jim Shankland (jas@rtech.UUCP) has suggested the two major differences
between a 'traditional' software RDBMS and a data base machine based
RDBMS are (1) the presence of special purpose hardware and (2) the use
of a special purpose O/S.  I agree.

He went on to speculate that "the special-purpose hardware people are going
to have a hard time keeping up with Sun, DEC, and the rest of the vanilla
hardware vendors."  My problem with this speculation is that it implies that
a vendor of database machine based RDBMSs must use a fixed mix of special
purpose hardware and software over time and at all levels of its product line.

For a counter example, look at the three biggest U.S. 'database machine'
vendors today (Britton Lee, Teradata, and Sybase) and you will find a large
varriation special purpose hardware content.  Teradata has the most specialized
hadware (a group of up to 1024 micros interconnected by a special bus called
'Y-net').  Sybase has no special hadware at all (it runs Suns and Vaxen).
Britton Lee's products are in between (a mini computer like design that has
been 'biased' in some ways to make it run RDBMS faster.)  In Britton Lee's case
the amount of special purpose hardware even depends on the product line
(higher priced / higher performance BL 700 having more special purpose hardware
than the lower priced / lower performance BL 300).  Not suprisingly the 
Teradata is the most expensive, while Sybase is least expensive, and Britton
Lee is again in between.

This same pattern also occurs over time.  In 1980 'N typical foo type 
transactions' might have required special hardware.  In 1987 that same
load might be achieveable with normal hardware; but might be cheaper if
done with special purpose hardware.  By 1990 it may be cheaper if done
with vannilla hardware.  But even in 1990 there will be other loads (perhaps
2*N or 10*N, or 'foo bar' transactions rather than 'foo' transactions)
which do require special purpose hardware.  Does that restrict database
machines to the high end?  Perhaps, we'll just have to wait and see.  Does
that restrict vendors of database machine based Relational Systems to the
high end?  Only if they perceieve themseleves as "special-purpose hardware
people".  If we perceieve ourseleves as "high performance relational database"
people then we don't have to compete with DEC and Sun.  We buy from others 
what works well and we make only what we can do better.  The exact mix of
what we make vs buy depends on the price/performance target for the product
and availability of approprate products from other vendors.

In summary, perhaps Jim and I do agree about the low end.  In the medium end
perhaps a mixture of vanilla hardware and some special hardware.  In the
high end for for some time to come I expect to see special purpose hardware.

--miket  (Mike Tossy)

(I do work for Britton Lee, Inc.  However these are only my personal opinions
and do not necessarily represent they views of Britton Lee, Inc.)