Posted by Tony Rogerson on 04/14/06 11:51

> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.

XP is a desktop OS, Windows Server editions are optimised for IO and
throughput and as such give better throughput than XP for applications like
SQL Server. There are also other considerations like, one important one is
disk cache - is it turned on / off, this will have a massive impact on
write operations.

> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.

On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
(http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there!

What about the 64bit - you still aren't comparing like with like. The only
thing it clarifies is you have little experience or knowledge of the windows
platform, your skill level on windows is that of a 'user'.

> I use a lot of MS products. Just not SQL Server for line-of-business
> apps. That hardly qualifies as an anti-MS bias. You just don't seem to
> like the message that there are somethings where Windows and/or SQL
> Server are not the best tool for the job. That is not my bias. That is
> the result of benchmarking.

Yes, you probably do - but as a user and not an architect or system engineer
setting and specifying kit. Your bias and anti-windows comes through on my
past experience with you and your postings and online attitude.

Your benchmarks are floored, even from what you've posted here that you used
XP that is quite evident.

> Given your knowledge of Oracle and ability to set it up properly I think
> one can pretty much assume the result is predetermined.

Yes, unfortunetly you need to tweak and configure oracle to make it work
well, that is not the case with SQL Server; so long as you get the hardware
and disk configuration and placement of database files correct then you
don't have to start tweaking the engine.

And yes, my findings will be biased and for one reason - because I have no
knowledge as a SE for linux, just as you in the windows environment.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1144953446.98074@yasure.drizzle.com...
> Tony Rogerson wrote:
>>> One factor we routinely see with Oracle is that one can take a single
>>> piece of hardware. First load Oracle on Windows XP SP2 on it and run a
>>> load. Then format the hard disk and perform the exact same test using
>>> RedHat Linux. The difference in scalability and performance is hard to
>>> miss.
>>
>> So you are comparing an OS mean't for the desktop (XP) against an OS
>> mean't for a server environment.
>
> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.
>
> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.
>
>> Like I say, your bias of anti-MS tunnels your judgement.
>
> I use a lot of MS products. Just not SQL Server for line-of-business
> apps. That hardly qualifies as an anti-MS bias. You just don't seem to
> like the message that there are somethings where Windows and/or SQL
> Server are not the best tool for the job. That is not my bias. That is
> the result of benchmarking.
>
>> If I get some free time I'll try a comparison between linux and windows
>> 2003 r2 server edition which is a more comparable test.
>
> Given your knowledge of Oracle and ability to set it up properly I think
> one can pretty much assume the result is predetermined.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)

[Back to original message]