Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dev!dgis!jkrueger From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses Message-ID: <783@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> Date: 5 Mar 90 16:15:34 GMT References: <1786@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk> <1990Mar2.232735.6071@world.std.com> <780@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <1990Mar4.222938.20483@world.std.com> Organization: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria VA Lines: 42 bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >I think the standard reference is still TP1 (Codd & Date?) and it >bears this ``folklore'' out. TP1 is a simplified, non-standard version of the DebitCredit benchmark. DebitCredit was published: Anon Et. Al, "A Measure of Transaction Processing Power", DATAMATION, April 1985. TP1 is neither as useful or comparable as DebitCredit. Its results are less meaningful, more sensitive to factors not controlled or reported. It's cheaper to run, easier to manipulate to get higher numbers, and harder to be held to as a standard. And DebitCredit itself is not perfect. But again, it's my belief that you're right, that dead whales generate more and faster i/o's. But I have no DATA. TP1 would be better than nothing, but DebitCredit would be the beginning of real usefulness. Anyone have any DATA? If TP1, results are meaningless without including information about table sizes used and method used to simulate users (tty vs. network vs. multiple concurrent batch). >[good points, material deleted] >Will [other vendors] even take an RFP >with absolute performance requirements? A continuing and profitable source of business for dead whales is right here in defense land. A popular MO for such deals is to take the RFP, sign the requirements, deliver the system, verify that it doesn't meet the requirements, and wait until the customer adjusts the requirements. The alternative, remember, is starting over. The vendor knows all along that the customer will have his personal reputation heavily staked on the deal by then. So it's impressive to state absolute performance requirements in writing, but it's even more impressive to meet them. One hopes it's better when the customer is Mastercard or J. C. Penny. -- Jon -- Jonathan Krueger jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil uunet!dgis!jkrueger The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.