Oracle, The Dates They are A-Changin´

One of the great things about using industry standard benchmarks for performance evaluation is that you can trust the data. It is run according to benchmark kits developed by a committee. It is audited. It produces data and the results don’t change.

Except when they do.

One of the very useful pieces of data that is part of a TPC benchmark result, in addition to performance and price performance, is the availability date. This is the date for which all components, hardware and software are available for purchase. There are TPC rules around this: “The Committed delivery date for general availability (availability date) of products used in the price calculations must be reported. The Availability Date must be reported on the first page of the Executive Summary and with a precision of one day. When the priced system includes products with different availability dates, the reported availability date for the priced system must be the date at which all Components are committed to be Generally Available. Each Component used in the Priced Configuration is considered to be Available on the Availability Date unless an earlier date is specified.”

As a consumer of industry standard benchmarks, we trust that the vendor has made extensive and detailed plans to meet this date and that we can use this date in our own systems planning.

It is not very common to change this date after the result is published. It is not very common to change this date on the exact date that the system is supposed to become available. Oracle just did both — yesterday they delayed the system availability date on a TPC-C Sun Fire X4800 result.(1) If you take a look at the Full Disclosure Report you can see that the components that aren’t ready are no small extraneous part of the configuration — they’re huge DIMMs, memory modules.

I’m going to take a wild guess that these components that are not yet available are very much needed to produce this benchmark result.

************************************************

(1)Oracle Sun Fire X4800 M2 server (8 chips/80 cores/160 threads) – 5,055,888 tpmC, US$.89/tpmC, available 7/10/12.
Source: http://www.tpc.org. Result current as of 6/27/12.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).
The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance,TPC,Sun,Oracle,X4800,M2,benchmark,11g,Linux,TPC-C,availability,date,benchmarking

What’s Really Behind an Oracle “World Record” ?

It’s so sweet. Oracle is really trying.

They realize how important it is to have industry standard benchmark proof points. They realize that these proof points should use important workloads. Like SAP.

But that’s where it ends.

In Oracle’s latest press release, they claim a “world record” on the SAP for Utilities Standard Application Benchmark. Here’s what you need to know:

• This Utilities benchmark is brand spanking new; the predecessor for this benchmark is the SAP Customer Care and Service benchmark, which was retired in January. What’s interesting is that there hasn’t been a result published on this benchmark for almost 10 years. Yes, you heard it, 10 years. Some might question the relevancy here.
• For the Utilities benchmark that Oracle just published on, some might say that Oracle indeed has a world record. When you are the only one publishing, it’s extremely easy to do this.
• This benchmark result is announced by Oracle. But it’s not even run on an Oracle system. It’s not run on SPARC. It’s not run on Exadata. It’s on Fujitsu Xeon hardware. Another case of a lack of proof points on the hardware that Oracle is touting.

Is Oracle really trying?

************************************************

Results as of June 6, 2012. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark
The SAP for Utilities standard application benchmark: 2-node Fujitsu Primergy RX300 S6, each with two six-Core Intel Xeon X5690 processors, 3.46 GHz, Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Real Application Clusters on Linux, 590,035 fully business processed assembly orders per hour. Certification #2012024. The SAP for Utilities standard application benchmark: single-node Fujitsu Primergy RX300 S6, with two six-Core Intel Xeon X5690 processors, 3.46 GHz, Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Real Application Clusters on Linux, 298,644 fully business processed assembly orders per hour. Certification #2012025.

Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, benchmarking, SAP,Utilities,ISU,Customer Care,CCS,Oracle,benchmark,11g,SPARC,RAC,Exadata,Xeon,Fujitsu,

RX300,X5690,Intel,benchmarking

Click Here for 10 Million: IBM vs. Exadata Redux

For a few minutes this morning I thought that I might win 10 million dollars. I had already envisioned inviting Larry Ellison for tea at my second home in the Cayman Islands. I had already reveled in the joy that these funds would bring to the non-profits I support.

And then I read the contest rules.

Oracle is once again sponsoring a contest that is advertised on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. A contest where Oracle claims that if an Exadata Data Warehouse system is not “5x faster” than a Power 795 Data Warehouse system, you win 10 million. Let’s take a look at the official rules to help you decide if you should enter:

• The contest rules state that “The Data Warehouse must be limited in speed only by database performance and not by application performance.” Realistic, right?
• Oracle, the “sponsor will select the queries for measurement.” Hmmmmm. Let’s select a couple out of a billion where we know we can win.
• If the Oracle system does not perform as well as Oracle thinks it should when you run it and there is a chance you might win the 10 million, Oracle runs your application again. Themselves. Just to make sure. Maybe with some extra caching on the side?
• “Sponsor disclaims any liability for damage to any computer system or other property resulting, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from participation in, or accessing or downloading information in connection with, this Challenge” If IBM wins, we’ll just blow it up.
• A participant in this contest “acknowledges, understands and agrees that Sponsor will have the unrestricted perpetual right to use, not use, alter, edit, publish, display, and/or post entrant’s entry and information . . .” Interesting that the word alter is in here . . .
• Oracle makes sure there is an easy out. “If no eligible entry is received that meets the above criteria, no prize will be awarded.” The contest rules also state that the “Sponsor reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to disqualify any entrant.”

Once again, this contest distracts the potential contestant from real-world issues such as balanced application performance, real benchmark numbers, software licensing costs, and RAS. I certainly wouldn’t put my money on a winner.

************************************************

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, benchmarking, dollar,Oracle,hardware,Exadata,ibmchallenge,power,benchmark,

software,data,warehouse,795,million,challenge,document,practices,

benchmarking

Law & Order: Special Benchmarks Unit

Long ago my dream was to become a math teacher. Or a doctor. Or a computer programmer, whatever that was. But never, never, never a lawyer.

So it’s very interesting that I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the law.

Maybe it’s the Trayvon Martin shooting case. Maybe it’s the sensational John Edwards trial. Maybe it’s the Tyler Clementi surprise verdict. Or maybe it’s just the latest John Grisham book I just finished.

In any case I’ve been thinking a lot about the law. A lot about the law . . . and benchmarks.

• Like how important it is to read the fine print legal disclaimers so you know exactly what is tuned and what is measured. Some vendors may not perform a valid comparison when comparing systems. I saw a presentation recently that stated “Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors.” Very interesting.
• Like how important it is to peruse all the court documents. Hard to believe but some vendors allegedly hide server product plans from clients for financial gain.
• Like how important it is to understand legal clauses containing prohibitions on running certain benchmarks. Some hardware/software vendors expressly prohibit others from publishing benchmarks with their software using severe license restrictions around performance evaluations. Could the software possibly run better on other hardware? And the question becomes “What are they trying to hide?” In fact, years ago a New York Supreme Court ruling barred this practice. “Such clauses censoring speech and criticism chill not only consumers’ speech, but also prevent academics, consumer advocates, and technology experts alike from openly and freely discussing software products,” said then New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer — who ironically faced his own legal circus years later.

So if I had gone to law school I might have a better handle on these legal intricacies with benchmarks. But then I probably wouldn’t know how to program or how to be an IT Specialist. You just never know. I recently read an article in the newspaper about a lawyer who just left the legal profession. He wanted to make more of a difference and found that he really loved his new profession. His new job was in a school. Teaching. 6th grade. Math.

************************************************

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, benchmarking, Intel,Oracle,hardware,HP,law,power,benchmark,software,database,

license,architecture,microprocessor,tuning,document,practices,

benchmarking

Is Oracle Fleecing You?

A couple of days ago, I bought a new fleece hiking jacket. In small, in black, on sale. With a hood. Made by a high end manufacturer whose name evokes a part of a mountain. The plush is luxuriously thick, the zipper hardware is incredible, and the tailoring just feels so right. I had tried on other jackets that just did not stack up. There was no comparison, apples and oranges, from different planets. And that reminded me once again of how some performance comparisons are made.

This week, Oracle claimed x86 “world-record” performance with the Sun Fire X4800 M2 on industry standard Java middleware and transactional database benchmarks. They compared their results to results from IBM. Here’s what you need to know:

For the Java SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark, Oracle needed more cores in both the application server and the database server. Oracle used over 4x the storage disks and over 7x the cache that was used in the IBM result. Oracle conveniently cites price/performance (which isn’t even a metric in this benchmark) for the application tier only. The picture would probably look very different if they included the important database tier (with all those costly Oracle licenses). Oracle compares their brand new result with an IBM result from over a year ago.(1) Maybe it’s time for a new . . .

For the transactional TPC-C benchmark, when you analyze the comparison correctly, the IBM result is actually 19% better performance per core than the Oracle result. The IBM configuration has been available for months, the Oracle configuration is not even available. And the Oracle result is 1.5x more expensive.(2)

When I got to the checkout line with my perfect fleece jacket, they told me that the store was having a special one day sale, another 20% off. I got myself superior performance and price/performance — and you can’t get much better than that.

************************************************

(1) WebSphere Application Server V7 on IBM Power 780 and DB2 on IBM Power 750 Express, (64 core app server, 32 core db server), 16,646.34 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS vs. Oracle WebLogic Server 12c and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Linux running on a Sun Fire X4800 M2 server(5U) with eight Intel Xeon E7-8870 2.4 GHz processors, (80 cores, 8 chips, 10 cores/chip, 2 threads/core) 27,150.05 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS.
(2) IBM System x3850 X5 (4 chips/40 cores/80 threads) – 3,014,684 tpmC, US$.59/tpmC, available 09/22/11 vs. Oracle Sun Fire X4800 M2 server (8 chips/80 cores/160 threads) – 5,055,888 tpmC, US$.89/tpmC, available 06/26/12.
Sources: http://www.tpc.org, http://www.spec.org. Results current as of 3/30/12.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).
SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).
The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, SPEC, SPECjEnterprise,TPC-C,780,750,POWER7,WebSphere,benchmark,Xeon,11g,WebLogic,M4,E7-8870,

Intel,x3850,Sun,Fire,Java,X4800,Power,Oracle,benchmarking

The Benchmark Games: Oracle’s New TPC-C

How does a place like Manchester, New Hampshire become the epicenter of the world these days? The big P, politics.

I think that many of us are getting tired of the circus. Lately, I don’t really care about what Mitt did to Ron, Rick’s strategy, or all the attacks on Newt. I only truly care about what the candidates stand for and what kind of leaders they would be.

Sometimes the political arena even reminds me of The Hunger Games. A deadly reality show driven by appearances, theatrics, and insane rules. Whether we’re talking about post-apocalyptic Panem or the world today, when we focus more on the game rather than what it means, that’s truly sad.

Oracle just published a new x86 TPC-C OLTP benchmark result, claiming a “world record.” And the mechanics of that claim are just plain sad.

Oracle compares their brand new benchmark result with an IBM Power result from 2007. Yes, 2007. And this very old Power result is still 1.68x the performance per core of the brand new Oracle result. Oracle also compares their new result with an IBM x3850 X5 result that is half the size of the configuration of the Oracle result — if you do the math the IBM result with DB2 is actually 1.25x greater performance per core than the Oracle result. Oracle forgets to mention anything about price performance here — probably because the Oracle result is over 1.6x more expensive than the IBM x86 result. And, if you can believe it, Oracle then proceeds to pick on a poor little HP system.(1)

How sad.

************************************************

(1) Oracle Sun Fire X4800 M2 server (8 chips/80 cores/160 threads) – 4,803,718 tpmC, US$.98/tpmC, available 06/26/12. IBM Power 570 server (8 chips/16 cores/32 threads) -1,616,162 tpmC, US$3.54 /tpmC, available 11/21/2007. IBM x3850 X5 (4 chips/40 cores/80 threads) – 3,014,684 tpmC, US$.59/tpmC, available 09/22/11. HP ProLiant DL580 G7 (4 chips/32 cores/64 threads), 1,807,347 tpmC, US$.49/tpmC, available 10/15/10. Results as of 1/17/12. Source: http://www.tpc.org .
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, Sun, X4800,TPC-C,Oracle,ProLiant,X5,M2,benchmark,x86,x3850,HP,DL580,E7-8870,G7,benchmarking

I Want to Buy a Zoo, Not an Oracle System

Most people don’t think about going to the zoo in the middle of winter. But it’s actually the very best time to go.

No crowds, the zebra fried oreo shacks are closed, and the animals are at their very best. And, after all, isn’t that what it’s really all about?

Last week, I had a spectacular visit. The polar bears were playing with dead Christmas trees, the seals and sea lions were playing with their rubber balls, and the grizzly cubs were playing with themselves.

And then there’s the Rainforest. Imagine stepping from a cold snowy Cleveland day into a zoological tropical paradise. Sort of like the feeling you get when the plane doors open, you get your carry-on from the overhead, and you step off in Miami. My rainforest favorites are the tropical monkeys, the river otters, and, of course, the anteaters. But alas, last week, the anteaters were still, lying on their sides, hiding behind a crop of rocks.

And that’s how I’ve been feeling lately about Oracle.

See what’s hiding behind the Oracle SPARC SuperCluster and Exadata systems. “Must buy” storage server software.

See what’s hiding behind that pricing in the Oracle benchmark. Artificially low support costs.

See what’s hiding behind Oracle’s “Itanium roadmap.” An investigation into Oracle’s “potentially abusive” practices.

What else do YOU think Oracle is hiding? All thoughts welcome.

************************************************

Oracle SPARC T4-4 server (4 sockets/32 cores/256 threads) 205,792 QphH@3000GB, $4.10/QphH@3000GB, available 5/31/12.
Source: http://www.tpc.org. Results current as of 1/11/12.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, Sun, SPARC,TPC-H,Oracle,11g,SuperCluster,T4-4,benchmark,Itanium,Autorite,HP,pricing,memory,Exadata,benchmarking

Cisco/Oracle Super Saturday TPC-C

So now they’re trying to put another one over on us. “Super Saturday” for retailers, where you shop till you drop the Saturday before Christmas, has been officially moved to tomorrow, one week early. To give us more sales and more time to shop until we drop. I’m just getting tired of being told that I should shop on Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Super Saturday, or any other time. It’s sort of like the greeting card companies saying let’s make a new holiday to celebrate your dog.

And that’s how I’m feeling lately being told about the latest Oracle and Cisco benchmark claims on the newest TPC-C OLTP benchmark result. Here are the 3 things you need to know:

• The Benchmark: Oracle didn’t even run this benchmark. And they didn’t even run it on their own hardware.
• The Performance: Note the special pricey Violin memory arrays that Cisco/Oracle used. And even an IBM result from over a year and a half ago on this benchmark is 70% better performance per core than this result.(1)
• The Pricing: Cisco and Oracle both take advantage of Super Saturday pricing methods in these results. Cisco shows a 57% “large purchase discount” for hardware. Pricing for Oracle 11g is for the limited standard edition. And very minimal support is included.

I know that both American Greetings and my black lab would really like that idea for the new holiday to celebrate your dog. I already bought my lab a large braided rawhide with red and green bows. So you know they have me.

Happy Holidays!

************************************************

(1) An 8-core IBM Power 780 (2 chips, 32 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 is the best 8-core system (1,200,011 tpmC, $.69/tpmC, configuration available 10/13/10) vs. Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Standard Edition One and Oracle Linux on Cisco UCS c250 M2 Extended-Memory Server, 1,053,100 tpmC, $0.58/tpmC, available 12/7/2011.
Source: http://www.tpc.org. Results current as of 12/16/11.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, Sun, Cisco,TPC-C,Oracle,11g,UCS,POWER7,benchmark,C250,standard,Linux,extended,memory,OLTP,benchmarking

All I Want for Christmas is a Good T4 Benchmark

I read an article the other day about a Santa school where aspiring Santas go to learn about how to be Santa Claus. Important concepts like how to comb your beard, how to make that amazing Ho Ho Ho, and where to properly keep your hands when a kid is on your lap.

In this economy one of the new lessons that the Santa school offers is on how to reduce kids’ expectations. Santa’s workshop has too many toys to produce Johnny, Santa can’t fit everything into his sack, a bunch of elves got sick.

Oracle announced a new TPC-H BI 3TB benchmark result today on the Oracle SPARC T4-4 server. Expectations surely need to be reduced on this one because here’s what you need to know:

• Oracle once again used an embarrassing amount of storage to run this benchmark — almost three times the amount of storage that IBM used.(1)
• Oracle once again used 128 query streams for this benchmark compared with IBM’s 8. TPC-H has a limited number of query variations; so when you run a lot of streams, you have a high probability that the same queries will be requested more than once. Oracle is greatly increasing the probability that they will have the results of the queries stored in their cache — which may not be representative of how their product would perform in a truly ad hoc query environment.
• Oracle once again published a benchmark where the configuration isn’t even available — until May 31, 2012.
• Oracle once again included extremely minimal support in their pricing. Does $2300 a year sound like what you are paying for software “incident server support” . . . ?

 

 

The most important lesson for Santas — Never promise anything.

************************************************

(1)IBM POWER 780 (8 sockets/32 cores/128 threads) 192,001 QphH@3000GB, $6.37/QphH@3000GB, available 11/30/11, 15,610 GB storage. Oracle SPARC T4-4 server (4 sockets/32 cores/256 threads) 205,792 QphH@3000GB, $4.10/QphH@3000GB, available 5/31/12, 45,600 GB storage.
Source: http://www.tpc.org. Results current as of 11/30/11.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, Sun, 3TB,TPC-H,SPARC,Oracle,T4,POWER7,benchmark,Solaris,11g,Java,Supercluster,T4-4,BI,benchmarking

Is There a “Right” and “Wrong” with Benchmarks?

Like many of our politicians lately, Oracle has been proselytizing — in this case that there are certain benchmarks which are right and certain benchmarks which are wrong.

In their evaluation Oracle claims to focus on all the right benchmarks while claiming that everyone else is focusing on the wrong ones. Let’s take a look at their reviews:

Thumbs up for SPECjEnterprise – Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, a good benchmark to use for Java applications. And that’s why IBM has outstanding results on this benchmark. Oracle’s T4 result needed four times the number of app nodes, twice the number of cores, almost four times the amount of memory and significantly more storage than the IBM POWER7 result.(1)

Thumbs up for Oracle ebusiness, JDEdwards, PeopleSoft, Siebel – Good when you need to model these exact applications but keep in mind that Oracle owns these “independent” benchmarks. Even with a stacked deck, IBM has #1′s here.

Thumbs up for TPC-H – Yes, totally agree that this benchmark is valuable for business intelligence applications. Which is why IBM just published a leadership 3TB TPC-H result.(2) And Oracle’s T4 result needed 2.7x the amount of storage and 14x the number of streams than the IBM POWER7 1TB result.(3)

Thumbs up for SPECweb2005 – Funny that Oracle likes this one since there is a definite lack of publishes here anymore and this benchmark is being retired in January.

Thumbs up for TPC-C – Even funnier that Oracle likes this one since Sun avoided publishing on this for many, many years claiming this benchmark was too old. Now, as a fair-weather friend, it’s a favorite. IBM has the top nonclustered result (even with an older Power system).(4)

Thumbs down for SAP SD – Interesting that this valuable benchmark for SAP users is on Oracle’s hit list. This benchmark is a wonderful measure for SAP users and has many proof points from many vendors. Is that why Oracle tries to avoid this one and instead publishes on other more obscure SAP benchmarks like SD-Parallel and ATO?

Thumbs down for SPECjAppServer2004 – Looking to fill up space, since Oracle knows as well as we do that this benchmark was retired almost a year ago. Also ironic because I do seem to remember that Oracle/Sun used to really like this benchmark. Alot.

Thumbs down for SPECcpu and SPECjbb – These are nice and easy for integer, floating point, and Java business apps. Surely valuable in their own way.

Thumbs down for Stream – Ignoring HPC users are we? We’ve seen this before with the TOP500. IBM has the most systems with 213. Oracle had 12.

Keep in mind that Oracle has only published their latest SPARC T4 results on 2 industry standard benchmarks — that’s right, only 2. Which is fine, if you don’t mind steering with your eyes closed.

My view is that you may want and need to look at different aspects of systems across a wide portfolio of many different types of benchmarks. Which is why IBM is #1 — in over 100.

************************************************

(1)Oracle WebLogic Server 11g and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Real Application Clusters and Oracle Solaris running on a four-node SPARC T4-4 cluster, each system with four SPARC T4 3GHz processors, (128 core app server, 64 core db server), 40,104.86 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS vs. WebSphere Application Server V7 on IBM Power 780 and DB2 on IBM Power 750 Express, (64 core app server, 32 core db server), 16,646.34 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS.
(2)IBM POWER 780 (8 sockets/32 cores/128 threads) 192,001 QphH@3000GB, $6.37/QphH@3000GB, available 11/30/11.
(3)SPARC T4-4 server (4 sockets/32 cores/256 threads) 201,487 QphH@1000GB, $4.60/QphH@1000GB, available 10/30/11. IBM POWER 780 Model 9179-MHB server (8 sockets/32 cores/128 threads) 164,747.2 QphH@1000GB, $6.85/QphH@1000GB, available 3/31/11.
(4)A 64-core IBM Power 595 (5 GHz, 32 chips, 128 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 is the best overall single system (6,085,166 tpmC, $2.81/tpmC, configuration available 12/10/08).
Sources: http://www.spec.org, http://www.tpc.org, http://www.top500.org. Results current as of 10/26/11.

TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

SAP, mySAP and other SAP product and service names mentioned herein as well as their respective
logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries all
over the world.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, BI, TPC,TPC-H,SPARC,Oracle,T4,POWER7,benchmark,TPC-C,SPEC,Stream,SAP,T4-4,Java,benchmarking