4 ms·
Sure thing. I was primarily answering the question above - in terms of how the numbers in the TPC-C benchmark fit in. I updated my comment to reflect the cost.
by pinars 9y ago
Sure thing. I was primarily answering the question above - in terms of how the numbers in the TPC-C benchmark fit in. I updated my comment to reflect the cost.
I think what's interesting with TPC-C is that you can sort the results based on performance or price/performance. On the price/performance metric, SPARC looks expensive. Dell has a $20K SQL Anywhere cluster that can do 113K tx/min.
I wonder if anyone tried to run these benchmarks on the cloud and how one would calculate total cost of ownership there now.
- qaq 9y agoyou do realize it's ancient hardware thats $300-400 USD on ebay now.
- tyingq 9y agohttp://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=110120201 http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=11... Yeah, but 1700 cores worth. That's still a lot of $300 boxes. Like qty 53 Sparc T3-2's for example. Which seem to be $1200 to $2k on eBay. And unsupported, end of life, etc. I'd compare CockroachDB's number to some more recent result with a similar number of cores. (If you can find one)
- qaq 9y agoI meant dell boxes Sparc based boxes retain some value
- guipsp 9y agoMinor correction: They used 54 SPARC T3-2. You can see exactly which components they used in http://c970058.r58.cf2.rackcdn.com/fdr/tpcc/Oracle_SPARC_SuperCluster_with_T3-4s_TPC-C_FDR_120210.pdf http://c970058.r58.cf2.rackcdn.com/fdr/tpcc/Oracle_SPARC_Sup...
- tyingq 9y agoNot feeling too bad about my back of the napkin guess being off by one server at 53 vs 54. :)