Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!snorkelwacker!spdcc!merk!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses Message-ID: <1990Mar4.222938.20483@world.std.com> Date: 4 Mar 90 22:29:38 GMT References: <1786@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk> <1990Mar2.232735.6071@world.std.com> <780@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 58 In-Reply-To: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil's message of 3 Mar 90 18:33:58 GMT From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) >bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >>The 3090 still provides fairly awesome I/O for the price... >>...It probably still is a cost-effective database >>transaction machine for very large databases > >Barry, > >It's folklore in the database world that things are as you say...but >nobody ever seems to have any numbers. It's my opinion that you're >right, but does anyone have any facts? I think the standard reference is still TP1 (Codd & Date?) and it bears this ``folklore'' out. I don't have numbers handy, my memory may be way off but I seem to remember seeing dozens of TPS for supermicros, around 100+ for modern minis, and approaching 1000 for machines like the 3090. I assume someone from a mainframe company can set this straight, it's their bread and butter. But that's not the only consideration, and many vendors (particularly in the super-mini and parallel mini class) are getting closer to their numbers. My personal feeling is that the 3090-class machines have gotten so huge that many people who think they need one don't, it's a religion left over from the days when smaller systems were a joke, particularly in regards to I/O. Today they may be a relative "joke", but have those databases really grown 10X or more? The smaller systems have. It's, of course, driven by a lot of rational considerations also, like installed software base (tho it's not clear that some folks wouldn't be better off spending a few million on converting their databases and a million on a new super-mini rather than buying the latest and greatest multi-million mainframe.) Look, when things get BIG there's a whole different set of considerations that kick in. There are 3090-class machines out there with over 10,000 simultaneous interactive sessions. Most systems which might be sufficient in other ways can't even plug in 1,000 interactive sessions, let alone manage them. And service and other considerations are a big issue, can that super-mini vendor afford to take a total loss on your system (and maybe more), millions of dollars, to save reputation, possibly taking a long view? Will they even take an RFP with absolute performance requirements? Not vague mumbles of benchmarks, but if their machine doesn't cut it, they take it back, and probably lose hundreds of thousands on install/de-install? For those who need it, they probably *do* need it, but we're talking databases approaching a terabyte at this point in history, probably a fortune-1000 company with millions of customers (Mastercard, JC Penney's, American Express etc.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD