Xref: utzoo comp.arch:4640 comp.databases:969
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-tis!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!eric
From: eric@pyrps5 (Eric Bergan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.databases
Subject: Re: Unix machines for large databases
Message-ID: <22126@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 5 May 88 23:36:37 GMT
Sender: news@pyramid.pyramid.com
Lines: 41

In article <2050@rtech.UUCP> markd@rtech.UUCP (Mark P. Diamond) writes:
>From article <428@cmx.npac.syr.edu>, by billo@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Bill O):
>> Help! By Friday we need to know if there is a Unix-based box that
>> can work as a very high-performance data-base server.  
>
>Take a look at the Sequent Symmetry.  This tightly coupled
>UNIX multiple processor is an optimum machine for running
>Relational Databases.

	Rather a sweeping statement...

>In a recent project with Relational
>Technology a sixteen processor Symmetry achieved 104 Transactions
>per second running the Debit Credit Benchmark (TP1) on
>a fully sized 1.1G Byte database, at a price performance ratio
>at about 1/8 that of Tandem  (all of this was verfied by
>the independent Codd & Date consulting group).  This is the  
>fastest (by a factor of about three) any UNIX box has achieved
>for this benchmark.

	Just to make sure we are comparing apples and apples here, I'm
a little surprised by the 1.1 Gbyte figure. How many tuples were you running
with in account? The "standard" 1,000,000 (with 1000 teller and 100 branch
tuples) or did you scale it up? If scaled up, it is probably not appropriate
to compare against any other tests that have been run, since the decreased
contention on the branch relation will improve performance. Did you run
with just one history relation, or did you split that up, and if so,
into how many pieces? I assume that this was with journaling turned on?

>RTI, Oracle, Informix and Unify run Sequent
>for their in-house applications.

	In general, claiming that a database vendor is using one particular
platform or another for in-house applications is similar to claiming
that the Bell Labs has bought your computer - it's not a very exclusive
club. Oracle has purchased several Pyramid 9840s for their world-wide
sales applications. Several of the database companies use Pyramid's
for their file servers.

	Obviously I am biased, but claiming that any computer is "optimum"
for so broad a range of possible uses as relational database applications
seems a little questionable.