benchmarkingblog

Elisabeth Stahl on Benchmarking and IT Optimization

Lackluster Larry

with 2 comments

As we await that big wave called OpenWorld to reach our shores, let’s take a look at what we have actually seen from Oracle in the last few days.

  • Questions on Oracle’s latest earnings and disappointing performance in hardware
  • A new ad on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that attempts to make a groundbreaking statement about the very old news that there are public clouds and there are private clouds.
  • A press release on a new TPC-C OLTP benchmark result.The problem is that it’s actually a Cisco benchmark result that just happens to use some Oracle software. And the problem is that the Cisco system in the comparison is 2 years newer, needs 2x the number of cores, and uses over 60% more storage than the IBM result cited. Even so, the older IBM system is 1.49x times the performance per core of the Cisco system. (1)

Based on this news plus what I’ve heard may be coming that huge OpenWorld wave may turn out to be merely a minor ripple in our IT landscape.

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

(1)Cisco UCS C240 M3, 1,609,186.39 tpmC, $0.47/tpmC, (2 processors/16 cores/32 threads) available 9/27/12 vs. IBM Power 780 Server Model 9179-MHB with IBM DB2 9.5, 1,200,011.00 tpmC, $0.69/tpmC, available 10/13/10 (2 processors/8 cores/32 threads). Results current as of 9/28/12. 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: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Advertisements

Written by benchmarkingblog

September 28, 2012 at 11:42 am

Posted in Cisco, Cloud, Oracle, TPC-C

Tagged with , ,

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Oracle press release makes some comparisons with an IBM DB/2 benchmark – a comparison which some at IBM feel is […]

  2. Why in heaven’s name wouldn’t they compare their E5-2690 based result to IBM’s E5-2690 result? That’s just silly–for lack of gumption to use a more suitable word.

    Should be http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=112041101 versus http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=112092601 which shows a 7% improvement in TpmC and 11% improvement in cost.

    Maybe there will be a DB2 10 result on E5-2600 to follow?

    kevinclosson

    September 28, 2012 at 1:34 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: