Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the is-fine-print-censorship? dept.

Microsoft 336

Player To Be Traded Later writes: "Robert Cringely at Infoworld reports here on Microsoft's attempts to squash SQL Server 7 benchmarks." In short, when a testing lab came up with far better results for SQL Server 7 under Windows NT than with its much-touted successor Windows 2000, Microsoft decided they'd rather keep the touting nice and quiet.

cancel ×

336 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Big Deal (1)

graniteMonkey (87619) | more than 13 years ago | (#380118)

Yeah, but it's a different story when it's an open-source loving, fuzzy little company like Oracle or IBM that does it. Those guys wouldn't hurt a fly, and have never done anything ruthless in their entire histories.

When Microsoft does it, however, you have to understand that they do it out of sheer malice. You know all those stories about Bill Gates being a programmer were lies, anyway. He's just another suit like Ellison.

Re:So what ??? (1)

Fruny (194844) | more than 13 years ago | (#380119)

[Win]2000 is pretty new and they are still tuning it up, so give them sometime and they would have it running better than NT.

From what I understood from the demonstration of WinXP we were given, Win2000 was only designed as a kind of 'proof of concept' on the way to WinXP. (Which looks even more bloated by the way.) So I think you can forget about them tuning Win2000.

Re:Big Deal (1)

popular (301484) | more than 13 years ago | (#380120)

I think it is perfectly OK to broadly say that your experience with one platform and RDBMS was faster/slower than another, but in general, benchmarks with numbers on any database fall well short of giving the full story.

I think the comparison between one database and another with raw numbers is rather unscientific. It's a case of apples and oranges -- you *could* compare dBASE to another RDBMS and find that dBASE blows everything out of the water, but can it do sophisticated locking and bookmarking? What about triggers and stored procedures? Does it have *any* XML support? The list goes on...

--

No bias here (4)

graniteMonkey (87619) | more than 13 years ago | (#380123)

an independent testing lab from publishing benchmark results that the lab ran for InfoWorld's
sister publication NetworkWorld


Hi, my name's Robert X. Cringely, and this is a completely impartial article.

Re:Squash? SQUASH??? (2)

tgeller (10260) | more than 13 years ago | (#380125)

Ooo, "quelch" works, too. Good one.

My desk dictionary (Webster's New World, 3rd College Ed.) gives the following definition for "squelch": "The act of suppressing or silencing, especially a crushing retort..." "Quash" is given a stronger definition: "To annihilate, destroy...".

I was thinking the jargon "squelch" (as used in audio technology circles), to eliminate signal output that's below a certain threshhold. Strangely, my dictionary doesn't give that definition.

Anyway, the point is obvious: Slashdot would be well served by having at least one professional editor looking at the text before it goes out.

--Tom

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (3)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 13 years ago | (#380127)

If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too).

Wow what a horrible bit of "evidence" to drudge up, since the same thing happened in reverse when some Linux benchmarks showed it performing worse than NT. The Linux crowd went berserk...

One thing I've learned over the years -- the only benchmarks that matter are ones you do yourself with real-world situations!

If you can't do them yourself, then you just have to take third party benchmarks with a mill of salt.

What about DOS? (4)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 13 years ago | (#380128)

I'm sure MSSQL would go pretty fast on DOS 6.2

Don't jump to conclusions just yet (1)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#380130)

Remember that Win2k is a relatively new beast and its initial adoption was pretty slow. Lots of hardware vendors are still hammering on their w2k drivers. It's very likely that once improved drivers start appearing the situiation will be reversed. NT4 drivers had five(!) years to mature.

Why does MS bother? (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 13 years ago | (#380133)

I find it interesting that MS would continue to squash things. They already squash all their competition, now they are squashing their own stuff!

Re:Don't jump to conclusions just yet (1)

The Blackrat (255469) | more than 13 years ago | (#380134)

fucking dumbass. SCSI controller drivers, maybe? Set up a sql box with no drivers whatsoever...tell me how well it runs, you dork.

Re:A note for those who didn't read the story. (1)

Jherico (39763) | more than 13 years ago | (#380142)

In other words, MS didn't win that particular round.

By the nature of the dispute, we only know about it because they lost. That gives us precisely no information on how many times they might have succeeded at squashing results like this. Jherico

Re:Big Deal (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 13 years ago | (#380143)

they restrict my speech on what I can say about that software

So how does this affect a Master's Thesis? Is Computer *Science* no longer science at all?

Not all the big RDBMS makers ban benchmarks (2)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 13 years ago | (#380145)

the big DB companies all ban publishing benchmark results through terms in their license agreements. This is incredibly irritating because it undermines the free market principle of "perfect information" (markets with "asymetric information" are known to be ineffecient, something laissez-faire Randites never seem to learn).

This would be bad if it were totally true. Oracle has benchmark clauses in its licence agreement. So does MS SQL Server. But DB2 UDB does not - take it, download it, play with it and publish the results. Not being able to publicize benchmark results is a really dumb way to try and tilt the market.

Note: I'm a developer for DB2 UDB so I'm hardly unbiased.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

There are two kinds of people in this world... (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#380146)

I love to see a Microsoft article go up, then observe the huge disparity in responses. Overwhelmingly, you see the two categories into which everything in the universe can be divided: 1)High school aged rabid Lunix advocates who are drooling all over themselves to get in a slashbot comment for the purposes of karma whoring, and 2)People who have jobs, earn money, and invariably have/want to work with Microsoft products. Granted, not all people who are outraged at this are making the same frothing response, but those of the former who do so are rewarded for their "cleverness" just as well as those from the latter who see that this is both typical behavior for any database vendor and wholly unsurprising to those who know squat about Windows. Of course those who are in their little "Yay Linux" world are predisposed to ignorance on the topic.

Transaction Processing Council (1)

cnkeller (181482) | more than 13 years ago | (#380147)

I've found that most of the third party benchmarks aren't viable for one reason or another. The ones that I go by are from the TPC.

http://www.tpc.org

Re:What about DOS? (1)

Nightpaw (18207) | more than 13 years ago | (#380149)

ALL YOU DOS ARE BELOG TO uS
fucking god damn lameness filter

You're complaining because the lameness filter is doing its job?

Re:Transaction Processing Council (1)

graniteMonkey (87619) | more than 13 years ago | (#380150)

Those show Microsoft as doing overly well, though, so therefore must be completely skewed. We should test and retest until an open-source database comes out on top.

Re:Don't jump to conclusions just yet (1)

sonny317 (300865) | more than 13 years ago | (#380151)

"NT4 drivers had five(!) years to mature."

Yeah, almost as many as the number of service packs they had to release. Sadly, I have more Tech-Net CD's than 500-hour AOL CD's... at least they microwave into a neato spider-webbed pattern.

Re:Mistake or no (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 13 years ago | (#380159)

Hee hee. Netscape enjoyed for a while the benefits of monopoly (if that's the word people want to use). But like all monopolists, they got fat and lazy and some upstart came along and made a better product.

The same thing is happening now to Microsoft and its monopoly (if that's the word). They got fat and lazy. And along comes the upstarts with Linux, BSD, Konqueror, Mozilla, KOffice, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, Eazel, yada, yada, yada.

I have no problems with "natural" monopolies. They got there because of the market, and the market is all too willing to take them out if they get uppity. Soon you're going to see Microsoft dissatisfaction hit critical mass and hell's going to break loose...

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 13 years ago | (#380162)

You have yet to present one reason why. If the OS is better at scheduling or whatever, it should be faster. You just spout of things without even any reasons.

You're right, you don't know you're place.

Re:Big Deal (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 13 years ago | (#380163)

So? Don't use their software! Is it that difficult of a concept?

Your freedom is up to you, and you alone. But beware, freedom is not convenient and easy. It is difficult and irksome.

Re:Bloat (2)

graniteMonkey (87619) | more than 13 years ago | (#380171)

Here [tpc.org] 's a nice example of the bloat for y'all. Try those benchmarks on a properly configured system.

Re:Squash? SQUASH??? (1)

graniteMonkey (87619) | more than 13 years ago | (#380178)

No, squelch is a sound that happens while playing squash.

God bless the expansive vocabulary of the /. high schooler.

Interesting (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#380191)

How is this any different than a totalitarian regime (i.e., China) monitoring the news and only allowing certain material that they deem "suitable for public consumption" to reach the masses? Microsoft has long said that their products are superior to their competition (Oracle, IBM, Linux, etc.) This type of censorship is stomach-turning. Come on, Microsoft, if you really believe your own press then there is no reason to supress the rights of free individuals in a free country to honestly and independently evaluate your product.

We are MS, we need no independent ratings! (2)

slashbrent (102855) | more than 13 years ago | (#380197)

Hi, where would like to go today?

What is that you ask? Are we the best product for you? How do we rate against others? - Trivial questions my friend, for we are the Bor..i mean Microsoft and Resistan..er, our products are Right For You (C) no matter who you are.

Did i mention that we are the biggest software company on Earth? How dare you try and subject us to such Consumer Reports drivel!!!

Sincerely, Bill Gates

Doesn't matter (2)

kahuna720 (56586) | more than 13 years ago | (#380199)

The PHB's and People In Charge will be unaffected anyway, since they'll just go ahead with whatever "Solution" Microsoft forces on them, regardless of merit or test results. Even if this got a great deal of publicity, I don't see it changing anything on either the pro- or anti-MS sides, because both camps already have their mind made up (or had it made for them by the software licensing their company has agreed upon).

Plus, we've seen such reactions to benchmarking results from MS before, and it didn't really seem to affect their market share...

Learn from your mistakes and admit it (4)

alptraum (239135) | more than 13 years ago | (#380202)

Typical Microsoft response. If someone else has a technology that could damage them, they buy the company and hide the technology to collect cobwebs. If they don't like a company, they browbeat them into the ground(prime example, Netscape). If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too). If the test results come back bad, MS should see it as where they came short this round, but to accept and try to fix in the future. Learn from your mistakes, don't cover them up and lie about the matter.

Fake benchmarks (4)

PepsiDman (320304) | more than 13 years ago | (#380204)

Keeping quiet about statistics is the best way to lie about them - This is just the same as the old toothpaste advertisments, that 'made 9 out of ten children have fewer fillings' - The results that the toothpaste company did not want seen were simply filed quietly out of sight. Companies releasing desired stats (and witholding undesirable ones) is nothing new... Its a simple fact :) There are lies, damn lies and then statistics; or in this case, Benchmarks :)

try this comparison (1)

BlueboyX (322884) | more than 13 years ago | (#380212)

Try a benchmark of NT4 without any service packs vs Win2k without any service packs. I think that may even things a bit.

OTOH, if NT4 still wins it is time to get scared :>

I can't say I blame them... (5)

km790816 (78280) | more than 13 years ago | (#380221)

So you have a new OS out that you want everyone to run. Would you want a benchmark coming out that says your old stuff is better. I'd like to point out that this article talks about SQL7. SQL 2000 runs MUCH better on Win2k than it does on NT4.

SQL7 was written to take advantage of NT4, not Win2k. I can't say that the test results OR Microsoft's actions suprise me much.

who cares? use SQL 2000 instead (5)

shodson (179450) | more than 13 years ago | (#380226)

If they lied, yes, damn them and shame on them. However, SQL 7 was built for NT, SQL 2000 was built for Windows 2000 and is their newer product anyway.

Also, it depends on how they had their Win2k box set up. Active Directory is a mess and could be slowing it down along with a bunch of other services that come with it by default that weren't part of NT.

SQL Server 7 on W2K? (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#380228)

Last I checked, SQL Server 7 was designed to run on NT 4, not W2K. It probably SHOULD be faster on NT 4. There are a lot of significant changes under the covers between NT 4 and W2K. If a company is upgrading to W2K, shouldn't they be upgrading to SQL Server 2000, anyway? I'd be more interested in seeing NT4/SQL7 vs W2K/SQL2000 benchmarks.

A note for those who didn't read the story. (5)

Su||uSt (151462) | more than 13 years ago | (#380237)

It should be noted that for whatever reason, be it MS backing down or the company discovering they could publish it legally, the results ARE online.

In other words, MS didn't win that particular round.

what, no FUD? (1)

epicurus (252619) | more than 13 years ago | (#380242)

I'm suprised they're not throwing FUD around at a time like this. Not that there's much to fear or doubt (unless you're them). Dang, just when I thought I could predict what they'd do in most situations too... ;)

So what ??? (2)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 13 years ago | (#380245)

They didnt try to squash the benchmarks when they were done against different OS's atleast. ITs Win NT and 2000. 2000 is pretty new and they are still tuning it up, so give them sometime and they would have it running better than NT. But how about the Oracle One Million AD. If you havent heard of it, then atleast go to some website where they have put up this ad which is so much bs about nothing.

Big Deal (5)

latneM (7876) | more than 13 years ago | (#380248)

News at 11, Microsoft enforces same license that every other database vendor uses. AFAICR, no big time database vendor would allow you to publish benchmark results, not just Microsoft. Now if they were going to allow the results to be published if the Win2K box beat the NT4 box, then you may have something.

Besides, they left out way too much detail to get in a fuss over. Like maybe the NT4 box was a 4 way P4, and the Win2K box was a P133 overclocked to 166 MHz and with flaky 32MB simm. They never state that the same hardware was used.

While I have never been accused of being in Microsofts corner, they are in the right on this one and we have seen darn near every major* database vendor pull the same stunt.

*For some definitions of major.

the best software (1)

BlueboyX (322884) | more than 13 years ago | (#380252)

The best software available is the MS software you haven't upgraded to yet! :P

Hey, MS already has an OS in most computers already. As an evil company, it has to come up with some funky way to make money, right? Maybe they are making dubious 'new' OS because nobody wants to by MS cereal...

Sounds familiar (1)

AdeBaumann (126557) | more than 13 years ago | (#380254)

Aahhh... Microsoft trying to show the "superiority" of their products with dodgy benchmarks... Sounds familiar [slashdot.org] ...

I'm just fine with PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] , thank you.

Isn't that legal? (2)

Su||uSt (151462) | more than 13 years ago | (#380256)

Wasn't there a law passed not long ago (it may have been the DMCA, I'm not sure), that said something about publishers having the right to force negative reviews of sites? Granted this is an "objective" benchmark (I know theres no such thing as an objective benchmark), but with a good enough lawyer, I would think MS would have a legitemate case.

Got to love the quote... (1)

Digital Mage (124845) | more than 13 years ago | (#380259)

When they realized they couldn't fix the problem, they, as my son would say from Toy Story, put on their angry eyes and came after us.

I have to tuck that one away for future use..."yeah, our customers put on their angy eyes when we told them the project couldn't be delivered on time."

Bad head... (2)

DESADE (104626) | more than 13 years ago | (#380278)

MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks

How about a little clarity here. What is this supposed to mean? Did Microsoft try to beat MySQL benchmarks? Maybe they tried to beat their own numbers? How about:

MS suppreses SQL Server benchmarks

or something else that actually comminicates the meaning of the story.

Re:Interesting (2)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 13 years ago | (#380280)

there is
no reason to supress the rights of free individuals in a free country to honestly and independently evaluate your product.

You missed the point. They cannot and do not suppress anyone's right to "honestly and independently evaluate" their products. They just suppress your free speach rights to tell anyone what you found. You're free to say "We evaluated MS SQL and Oracle and chose Oracle because we feel it blows MS off the map", you just can't say how much it blows.

Crippling the OS for other benchmarks (2)

devphil (51341) | more than 13 years ago | (#380288)


I recall one test where MS had lined up three or four of its OSes and ran benchmarks, with the obvious marketing goal of "proving" that their latest OS was the best.

Except that they specifically instructed the testing lab to disable direct memory access for (I think) NT, it order to make it run way slower.

but i digress (1)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#380289)

Things wrong with just this one sentence:

As many astute readers have pointed out, Java's a platform-independent language. It doesn't matter if it's Pentium IV or Amiga. If there's a compiler for it, it will run.

1. Most of their readers are probably not that astute.

2. He probably doesn't know what astute means.

3. Pentium 4 is a processor, Amiga is a company

4. If there is a virtual machine for it, it will run, I doubt there are java compilers written for cell phones and handsprings.

I am allowed to bitch, because I have never said anything false, ever. EVER.

Re:What about DOS? (2)

reynolds_john (242657) | more than 13 years ago | (#380291)

I've been running SQL Server 7 on PCDOS 7.0, and my TPC Benchmarks rival that of Oracle/DB2!!! We've posted our results to Microsoft and run internal competitions with SQL Server 2000 running on Win2k Datacenter - but SQL 7 with DOS just simply outpaces them all.

We're readying terradata-sized data warehousing.... now we just need to figure out a way to partition out our database into 2.1 gig fat partitions and drive letters (the hallmark of any 'real' operating system!).

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#380293)

Typical uninformed slashbot bs. SQL 7 on NT vs SQL 2000 on W2K would have been a fair test. I dont blame MS for squashing incompetence anymore than I'd blame Linus for giving up the ghost on this Linux nonsense.

Squashing reviews (3)

CyberDawg (318613) | more than 13 years ago | (#380295)

I know it's in their license, but I have a serious ethical problem with a company being able to control "independent" reviews of their products.

I believe that it's only reasonable for a company doing product reviews to allow the vendor to respond. If Network World puts up a review saying that SQL is slower on NT5^H^H^HWin2000 than on NT4, Microsoft should not be able to kill the review. They should be able to respond, and Network World should post the response along with their review. That's called responsible journalism.

Couldn't find any mention at NetworkWorld (1)

cheshire_cqx (175259) | more than 13 years ago | (#380308)

Cringe says the information is back on line. I poked around for quite a bit and did a bunch of searches on NetworkWorld Fusion [nwfusion.com] . There's no link from the InfoWorld article.

If this is the right site (IDG publication), they certainly aren't making this easy to get to.

Why did I spend 20 minutes on this?

---
In a hundred-mile march,

Bloat (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#380314)

Of course, this is not a bug. It is a feature. MS say so.

Seriously, it looks like w2k has got a bad case of software bloat. But we should make sure that everyone knows what MS is doing. Just so that people get the appropriate warm and fuzzy feeling.

After all, it is NOT a bug. it is a feature.

For those interested, here is a link to the original benkmarks [nwfusion.com]

M$ Squashes test (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 13 years ago | (#380316)

I wonder if they would like to see how MSQL Server compares to Win2K and NT4 with Wine under linux

Where is the benchmark? (5)

Codeala (235477) | more than 13 years ago | (#380317)

I find it a bit interesting that the article has no link to the websites of the testing lab or the actual benchmark result...

NetworkWorld eventually overcame the Microsoft threat, however. The test results were posted on its site early last week.

So where is it?

====

a way around the "no benchmark" rules (5)

swinge (176850) | more than 13 years ago | (#380318)

the big DB companies all ban publishing benchmark results through terms in their license agreements. This is incredibly irritating because it undermines the free market principle of "perfect information" (markets with "asymetric information" are known to be ineffecient, something laissez-faire Randites never seem to learn). In pursuit of the public benefit of market efficiancy, wouldn't this be a way around these stupid rules:
  1. put up a webserver with some CGIs that do some useful largescale things.
  2. Implement the same things in several CGIs that communicate with different back-end databases.
  3. Allow the public to come to the server and run and compare results (yes, you need some locking to stop them from interfering with one another).
  4. If some member of the using public is a journalist, that journalist is free to publish the results because they are not party to the license.
  5. You, a party to the license, are free to implement a website like this because it's just like any other website, albeit with a little extra redundancy.

Slash should do it.

Re:who cares? use SQL 2000 instead (5)

gregbaker (22648) | more than 13 years ago | (#380319)

Also, it depends on how they had their Win2k box set up. Active Directory is a mess and could be slowing it down along with a bunch of other services that come with it by default that weren't part of NT.
The article says that the lab worked with MS "for a week" to figure things out and "neither company could fix the problem". I'm no W2k expert, but I'm sure the MS tech that work with major trade publications are. I'm sure they would have thought of turning off extraneous services.

My guess would be that MSSQL7 uses some system calls that are "native" in NT4, but are some kind of backwards-compatible kludge in W2k. If that's the case, it would make perfect sense that MSSQL7 would be slower on W2k, but MSSQL2k would be comparable.

Just Go to (1)

jjr (6873) | more than 13 years ago | (#380321)

Haven Co (Sealand) and do all the benchmarks there no laws can stop you.

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (1)

pcurran (48910) | more than 13 years ago | (#380337)

If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too).
You're right, but in all fairness, the NT vs. Linux benchmark war went both ways. Here is an old Slashdot article [slashdot.org] to show you what I mean. But it's all pretty silly when you get right down to it.
Wasn't it once said that there are kinds of falsehoods: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks? *grin* Just a thought...

RE: I can't say I blame them... (1)

mojo_joe (323297) | more than 13 years ago | (#380339)

Has anyone, who actually knows what they are doing, actually done anything other than ragging on M$, i.e. running tests on the two OSes in question?

Re:who cares? use SQL 2000 instead (2)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 13 years ago | (#380341)

Also, it depends on how they had their Win2k box set up. Active Directory is a mess and could be slowing it down along with a bunch of other services that come with it by default that weren't part of NT.

Of course that's hardly a ringing endorsement. "You can't get the best results with our new OS because the wonderful new features we're advertizing so much slow things down." The argument about Win2000 needing SQL2000 is plausible, but you do have to wonder whether it's really a good idea to be running software that's so dependant on the OS to get peak performance.

Squash? SQUASH??? (1)

tgeller (10260) | more than 13 years ago | (#380346)

The word you're looking for is squelch. SQUELCH.

--Tom

Cringely track record looks discouraging... (2)

sheldon (2322) | more than 13 years ago | (#380348)

The past couple of weeks have not been good for Cringely.

First the claim that Adobe Framemaker was going away, then Java won't run on Pentium IV, then this?

But then it is just a rumor column, and you can't believe everything you read.

It'd be nice if the actual NetworkWorld article was available somewhere to understand the specific issues.

Why do DB companies get away with this? (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 13 years ago | (#380363)

I could race a BM and a Ford to see who came out first, and publish the results. Why can't I do that with DB software?

of course it does (1)

The-Pheon (65392) | more than 13 years ago | (#380365)

SQL server 7 was built to run on Win NT. SQL2000, the newer version, was built to run on windows 2000. You can not compare apples to oranges. Of course the version optimized for NT4 will run better on NT4, Just as the new version is optimized for win2k.

Re:try this comparison (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 13 years ago | (#380368)

Why? I mean, they took all they learned in NT4 and used it in making Win2k right?

Besides, no one would run without the service packs. I might as well run my car with a broken transmition...

Re:SQL Server 7 on W2K? (1)

SocietyoftheFist (316444) | more than 13 years ago | (#380371)

Well why couldn't Microsoft say this then? Speaking for Microsoft?

Re:Why do DB companies get away with this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#380374)

Unless you shit seriously fast there's no need to publish the results of a race between a Ford and your bowl movement.

What else was tested? (1)

The1 (189107) | more than 13 years ago | (#380375)

I'm wondering if they did any tests with Linux, BSD or Mac OS X Server. Why would the testing lab only test Win2k and Solaris? Don't testing labs usually test EVERYTHING!?

Re:I can't say I blame them... (1)

n0ano (148272) | more than 13 years ago | (#380378)

I'd like to point out that this article talks about SQL7. SQL 2000 runs MUCH better on Win2k than it does on NT4.

OK, then can you give me performance numbers for SQL7/NT4.0 vs. SQL2000/Win2K?

--
Don Dugger
VA Linux Systems

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (3)

darkonc (47285) | more than 13 years ago | (#380379)

NT vs SQL 2000 on W2K would have been a fair test.

If that were the case, I would expect that Microsoft would have mentioned it in the week that they took in trying to find a resolution.

In any case, if this is at all indicative of how software fares on W2K when moved from NT4, then they should be printing a warning on their box that NT 4 software could run as slow as half speed on their newfangled OS.

If nothing else, SQL customers who are thinking of movingto W2K would be well off to know these results before they upgrade their OS, rather than after. Otherwise they could be caught with their pants down after an upgrade seems to go cleanly and then bogs down horribly once the queries get back up to production volume.
--

Re:Why do DB companies get away with this? (4)

Gerad (86818) | more than 13 years ago | (#380381)

IANAL, AFAIK, yada yada, standard disclaimers and all that stuff.

The difference is that you buy a car, and then physically own it and can do whatever you want with it (within normal laws not related to the purchase of the car). You license computer software, which means that you purchase permission to use it under circumstanced stated in your license agreement. You never actually own the DB software.

It's the basic difference why you can do so many things with tangable things that you buy, as opposed to intellectual property that you licence.

Re:What about DOS? (1)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 13 years ago | (#380383)

Um...pardon me, but this is +5 Funny because....why exactly?

All the same (1)

magnetx11 (152596) | more than 13 years ago | (#380384)

Just like any other DB/OS, Linux,Win32 or whatever, 90% of the problem is BLOAT!!!

Re:Squash? SQUASH??? (1)

rochlin (248444) | more than 13 years ago | (#380385)

Actually the word is quash: to suppress or extinguish (def 2 - websters). Squelch would be OK, but I think he was thinking of quash - which is what people usually say when they're talking about some mega-company trying to hide an embarrassing fact.

SQL Server 7 "User Friendliness" (2)

darrint (265374) | more than 13 years ago | (#380393)

I work with SQL 7. We ran into some severe performance problems when we cranked a lot of transactions at it over ODBC. We found it to be slower than SQL Server 6.5, although some backwards compatibility prevented us from doing a real "apples to apples" comparison.

Also, our app runs a lot of CPU intensive transactions. SQL Server 7 is self tuning so we provided REAL slow service to our customers for a day or so while SQL 7 figured out what we were doing to it. We knew where the hot spots were, but were powerless to fix the problem because SQL Server 7 is more "user friendly".

Maybe MS did better with 2000? I don't care to find out. When PostgreSQL in a fault tolerant cluster starts to become more mainstream, I'm going to start looking at moving that direction.

Re:who cares? use SQL 2000 instead (3)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 13 years ago | (#380398)

What's going to happen when a windows XP comes out? Oh I get it you have to upgrade your database server too.

Can you really expect ... (1)

Regolith (322916) | more than 13 years ago | (#380400)

Microsoft (or any other corporation for that matter) to intentionally give themselves negative publicity?

FICTIOUS M$ PRESS CONFERENCE

"Thank you for coming. I would like to read a brief statement, after which I will take take your questions.
We at Microsoft would like to inform our customers and partners that we, as a software manufacturer, truly suck. Because of this fact, we will hereby be relinquishing our position in the software industry to pursue an area close to the hearts of many who work at Microsoft: bull shit. As of March 22, 2001, Microsoft will become Microsoft Fertilizer, Inc., distributor of scalable fertilizer solutions for all of your agricultural needs.
Now, are there any questions?"

-----

Re:I can't say I blame them... (2)

passion (84900) | more than 13 years ago | (#380402)

Isn't that a similar story to how the Pentium 4 is Slower Than Its Predecessor [nytimes.com] ?

Gee - this upgrade every year thing just doesn't seem to be working out for these monopolistic companies...

Re:Why do DB companies get away with this? (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 13 years ago | (#380403)

I think this licensing issue is a red herring.

Since the license is a contract, am I free to renegogiate the terms? Suppose I, a billionaire, want to determine once and for all whether MS SQL is faster on NT4 or W2K. Can I do this, after paying off MS, and signing a contract that allows me to publish the results?

Just how much is this information worth, to MS? That is the question I ask.

An MS Bashing overview of the past few years (2)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 13 years ago | (#380404)

I've watched the Slashdot community turn from all Linux to almost pro-Microsoft. I think fuddled attepts at MS bashing have turned into a spin doctoring that is very MS-esque.

The Kerberos thing, they try to sue people who publish their Kerberos specs, so they link them on Slashdot. Then they try to sue Slashdot. Then, they simply open their specs and we all see there was nothing worry about. (One could suspect them as baiting the community but I won't.)

Earlier there was MindCraft benchmarks, where NT whooped Linux. Well, as many first started attacking MindCraft for being skewed, they opened their process and showed that infact it was skewed --but not at least in the ways that the community had accused them of! (One could suspect them of baiting the community but I won't.)

Now we have MS apperantly squelching benchmarks on their SQL servers. Slashdot gets up in a riot, while many people point out that SQL 7.0 was ment for NT 4, and the 2000's were meant for each other.

Again a nice simple answer that could leave the community red-faced. On close examination however, we consider then what MS is doing in the first place? If MSSQL+ windows 2000 was faster than SQL 7.0 + NT4.0 then there is no to do. Such a benchmark would encourage a double upgrade rather than one! More money right?

So I take issue with those trying to come to MS's aid on this one. Do they understand what the real issue is? Its not MS's evil ways or kangaroo trial by community. Its simply that they should continue to be open and let their users figure it out for themselves.

Re:SQL Server 7 on W2K? (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#380405)

good plan. you can upgrade your OS, but you'll need to upgrade all your other software if you don't want everything to slow down horribly. Would you like the undercoating with that? These OSes will rust up on you in an instant! How about the "protection plan?"

And the point is? (5)

Pinball Wizard (161942) | more than 13 years ago | (#380406)

Doesn't Oracle do exactly the same thing? AFAIK, you have to get permission to publish benchmarks. So what. Its in the licence.

Something is definitely fishy with their hardware if Win2K is twice as slow as NT4. I've run both servers with SQL7 intensively. You couldn't pay me to move back to NT4. 2000 isn't all that much faster, but it is much more stable and its a lot easier to use and administrate.

Want some real benchmarks? Try here [tpc.org] . Notice a pattern? SQL Server is the fastest database server in the world. Not only that, but Win2K is in the top four slots. 2nd place is a DB2 server on Win2K. Here are real, industry standard tests performed by an independent organization, not a company with an agenda to promote or magazines to sell.

I'm not sure what the point of this article is, other than to stir up more mindless MS-bashing. Well, Timothy, maybe you should try SQL Server or another real database. Pretty much every day around noon we get the same problem because Slashdot can't handle displaying stories while lots of people are posting. A real database would do wonders to fix that.

Re:Big Deal (1)

molo (94384) | more than 13 years ago | (#380407)

Oh, so its perfectly OK that if I use their software, they restrict my speech on what I can say about that software? No way in hell! They and all the other major db vendors that pull the same stunt can shove their EULAs where the sun don't shine!

What the hell? (2)

Codeala (235477) | more than 13 years ago | (#380408)

The closest artcile I can find is this one [nwfusion.com] , and it compares the throughput of Gigabit Ethernet on NT vs W2K??

It kind of match Cringely's story:

  • is on Network World (www.nwfusion.com) and titled "Microsoft disputes research about Win 2000"
  • is about NT vs 2000
  • an independent testing lab is involved: Tolly Research
  • is about a NIC
  • and about a week old...

Further proof that /. will print anything?

====

Re:Squash? SQUASH??? (1)

ljagged (107082) | more than 13 years ago | (#380409)

Actually, the word is 'quash'.

A.

They bother because they can. (1)

mr (88570) | more than 13 years ago | (#380420)

If any of you had actually read the Microsoft licenses, this goes back to NT 4.0, before service pack #1.

This license *ALSO* has a clause that if you make software, sell it to someone else and Microsoft is included in any lawsuit, *YOU* have to pay for Microsoft's defense.

Re:I can't say I blame them... (3)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 13 years ago | (#380424)

You make some excellant points

Ff you buy the SQL2K/W2K combo you will have to upgarde both your dabase server and your OS at the same time.
The cost of the operating system should be added to the cost of the database server for a true comparison.
Oddly this makes oracle price competitive in most circumstances how funny is that?

SQL 2000 on Win NT vs Win2000 (1)

alen (225700) | more than 13 years ago | (#380426)

Anybody know the performance difference of SQL 2000 on Win2000 vs NT4? I'm thinking SQL 7 was optimized for NT 4.

Re:Where is the benchmark? (1)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 13 years ago | (#380427)

My question exactly. I even went looking for it on www.networkworld.com (don't bother -- but, if you find it there, let me know!) and, since it's a "sister publication to InfoWorld" I looked in the InfoWorld Test Center. Nada.

So, asking again for emphasis, Where is the article?

Re:Why do DB companies get away with this? (2)

PD (9577) | more than 13 years ago | (#380428)

Does the Ford accelerate at 9.8m/s^2?

Re:Don't jump to conclusions just yet (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 13 years ago | (#380429)

Remember that Win2k is a relatively new beast and its initial adoption was pretty slow
With results like this, is it any wonder that the adoption rate was pretty slow?
--

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 13 years ago | (#380430)

Why is that a bad test? If Win2k is really faster and whatnot then NT, shouldn't the SAME product run faster? What the hell would your test prove? How do i know if its SQL7 or 2000 thats faster, or if its the OS? Your test proves nothing.

no db company supports benchmarking (3)

small_dick (127697) | more than 13 years ago | (#380431)

as i recall, neither MS or Oracle are very enamored with third party benchmarks. the only time they *don't* threaten the publisher is when their product "shines".

the results are just too easy to skew, and the real-world loading is tough to accurately model.

i'm trying to learn Oracle on linux -- it's pretty cool the way I can legally install a free OS, then download oracle 8i enterprise for personal use.

"oratcl" is now on sourceforge, and php3 has gtk+ bindings for standalone applications (but works great through a browser, of course).

it's a great time to learn about databases...just don't publish those benchmarks!

Re:I can't say I blame them... (3)

Pinball Wizard (161942) | more than 13 years ago | (#380432)

can you give me performance numbers for SQL7/NT4.0 vs. SQL2000/Win2K>

Let's just say they're slightly better [tpc.org] than MySQL on Linux.

Fair use (3)

blakestah (91866) | more than 13 years ago | (#380433)

Under standard copyright law, something like benchmarks is considered fair use, and is thus not subject to asinine click through agreements. If something is not covered by copyright law, it cannot reasonably be covered by click through.

This is also the case in Europe, where, for example, you are legally allowed to resell Microsoft OS licenses. It is the only way to interpret copyright law wrt software that makes sense.

Oh, silly me. Who expected M$ to make sense ?

Re:who cares? use SQL 2000 instead (1)

T3kno (51315) | more than 13 years ago | (#380434)

You don't think micros~1 techs could have figured out an OS configuration issue? The article states that they did consult micros~1 to help them with the problem. Reading between the lines once the m$ techs figured out that it was NOT an OS configuration issue they freaked and said "show these numbers to anyone and we'll sue".

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 13 years ago | (#380435)

Yes, but that would not be true. However, you may say it all you like.

So tell me, why shouldn't the same software run faster on the new 'faster' OS?

Nevermind, i know you won't answer, you're just some lame anonymous fuck.

Re:Doesn't matter (2)

dachshund (300733) | more than 13 years ago | (#380441)

The PHB's and People In Charge will be unaffected anyway, since they'll just go ahead with whatever "Solution" Microsoft forces on them, regardless of merit or test results.

Not necessarily. MS doesn't own this market-- there's a lot of competition, and the Win2K release has been something of a failure. I know plenty of People In Charge who are dubious about Win2K because on their personal machines it runs like a pig, and that doesn't inspire confidence from even the densest boss.

Re:a way around the "no benchmark" rules (1)

torinth (216077) | more than 13 years ago | (#380445)

See... the thing about the db result limitations is that in reality, they're meaningless. It's been deomonstrated that benchmark results of various databases make very poor comparisons, as the database functionality is largely proprietary an varies a heck of alot between what benchmarks are drawn. The companies put up the limitiations to protect themselves from undue criticism. The fact of the matter is, that you need to know _your_ database, and convince IBM and Oracle to both loan you a their db's for a trial period, and you can run personal benchmarks over your application. But your results bear little to zero weight against any other corporation's application.

-Andrew

Re:Big Deal (1)

latneM (7876) | more than 13 years ago | (#380446)

A perfectly reasonable response. No one is going to force you to buy a major db, with the possible exception of a boss. You have every right to not buy any product you wish, just like they have the right to restrict what can be done with their product.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I can see the DB vendors point here. The major DB systems take a tremendous amount of knoweldge to tune. They don't want a published benchmark to show their product is inferior simply because someone didn't know how to set it up [slashdot.org] .

On the other hand, I think there are results that can be published if they are properly audited [tpc.org] .

Re:Big Deal (2)

OmegaDan (101255) | more than 13 years ago | (#380448)

I'm sorry, but *EVEN IF* it was an unfair test they have the right to publish it. Its your job to decide wether the test was fair or not, not MS's. Microsoft skews test results in its favor all the time (remember the apache/iis affair?) so at its worst, this is no worse then what MS itself does.

This leaves us in a bad situation, no one can publish benchmarks that show the software in a bad light, and you most ceartinly can't trust their own benchmarks.

I realize lots of other databse vendors do this, but that dosen't make it any more or less right.

Re:Learn from your mistakes and admit it (1)

dachshund (300733) | more than 13 years ago | (#380449)

In any case, if this is at all indicative of how software fares on W2K when moved from NT4, then they should be printing a warning on their box that NT 4 software could run as slow as half speed on their newfangled OS.

And perversely, they'd probably sell a lot more software as a result.

Re:Why do DB companies get away with this? (5)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 13 years ago | (#380450)

So what? If I go to the store, purchase a copy of the program, and install it without agreeing to the EULA, I can still legally run it (MS has been compensated; there's a provision in 17 USC that excludes the running of software from infringement) and MS can, indeed go to hell.

Of course, I would hope that they don't drag down the entire neighborhood, as I live pretty close by.

Most copyrighted material is not licensed at all, or as a condition of purchase, software included. Even the legality of a post-sale EULA is the matter of some debate. Don't assume that the things are 100% legit just because software publishers claim that they are. IIRC the case law is almost evenly split, with a slight leaning in favor of the 'EULA's don't count' side.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?