×

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!

World's Largest Databases Ranked

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the cylinder-sizing dept.

Data Storage 356

prostoalex writes "Winter Corp. has summarized its findings of the annual TopTen competition, where the world's largest and most hard-working (in terms of load) databases are ranked. The results are in, and this year the contestants were ranked on size, data volume, number of rows and peak workload. I wrote up a brief summary of the top three winners in each category for those too lazy to browse the interactive WinterCorp chart."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

356 comments

Coming in second... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699679)

The SCO Misinformation and Deception Database.

Re:Coming in second... (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699827)

Large yes, but I'm sure that their list of who they want to sue must be huge! (Atoms in the universe huge.)

Google (5, Interesting)

ScribeOfTheNile (694546) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699684)

I would've expected to see Google in there somewhere.

I was surprised too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699716)

I thought the Sloan Digital Sky Survey would have made the ranking too. But damn! It's not even close!

Re:Google (5, Informative)

lewp (95638) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699767)

Even if Google qualified, which it probably doesn't due to the methods it uses for its data storage, if I read the article properly the database vendors are responsible for naming the participants.

Since Google's stuff seems to be developed in-house, they don't have a major database vendor to nominate them.

Re:Google (5, Informative)

stripmarkup (629598) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699806)

It seems that they are comparing relational databases. Search engines use proprietary databases which, among other things, do not allow for live insertion of records, SQL commands, etc. As for data volume, Google (or Yahoo or MSN, for that matter) are probably in the ballpark. The average html page is around 10k. Google probably stores at least 10^9 raw web pages in their cache(that's 10 TB alone) plus a lot of meta information about links to-from many others.

Doesn't have to be relational (4, Interesting)

arrogance (590092) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699925)

From the article: "the TopTen Program featured 141 qualified and validated surveys representing 23 countries spanning all major DBMS, server and storage vendor products." So it just has to be a DataBase Management System, not necessarily Relational.

article also reports that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699687)

MS SQL Server is the database of choice for 7 of 10 respondents.

Microsoft truly does rule the world, and I, for one, am thankful.

Re:article also reports that (-1, Offtopic)

MikeCapone (693319) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699695)

Microsoft truly does rule the world, and I, for one, am thankful.

Care to explain why?

Re:article also reports that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699736)

Certainly. Microsoft is developer friendly. Their software just works, and it works well. For example, I just finished an LDAP login module, and after testing it against Novell's eDir and several other vendors, ActiveX Directory was hands down the fastest.

Also, Microsoft produces the only C++ IDE I'll ever use - Visual Studio. I just haven't found anything else for ANY platform that compares.

As long as Microsoft is on top, I can continue getting their solutions cheap, and they can continue to produce excellent products.

What will you do when MS loses it's monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699789)

It's going to happen. All mass markets become commoditized eventually.

And the cost of an individual "unit" in a commoditized market is pretty close to the marginal cost to produce that "unit".

And the marginal cost to produce a copy of software is about as close to zero as any product will ever be.

In other words, Microsoft is trying to buck the tide of the process that reduces prices in damn near every other mass market in human history.

Get over it. Free software is the future.

Re:article also reports that (-1, Offtopic)

koekepeer (197127) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699711)

although among the biggest databases (his summary) is represented at a much lower percentage than 70

which doesn't mean M$ does not rule the world. as much as your statement doesn't prove M$ rules the world.

(can't believe i'm responding to a troll_

Only on Windows platform! (5, Informative)

MS (18681) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699822)

Read all, to get the facts:

Lastly, in the Windows OTLP category HP servers were used by 7 of 10 organizations, and Microsoft SQL Server was the DBMS choice for seven respondents.

Neither WindowsNT, nor MS SQL are generally a choice for the top databases. In fact, to make the entry in this list, a Windows-Database was required to be only half as big as databases on other platforms:

In order to qualify for the TopTen program consideration, any commercial production database implementation was required to feature a minimum of 500 GB of data for Microsoft Corp.'s Windows and NT platforms and 1 TB of data for all other platforms

:-)
ms

Re:Only on Windows platform! (2, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699974)

At least they don't try to hide it in three point text -- it's right there on the main page. But, anyway...if you want to see another (MS) view, look here [microsoft.com].

By the way, I must just grumble at the lack of knowledge some people have on SQL Server. I sat in a meeting a few weeks ago with our Oracle-centric architects who decided that, as SQL Server is being used more and more extensively in our company, they'd better understand something about it. They started asking us various questions which rather puzzled me until I thought I knew what the problem was. "You do realize that SQL Server uses transaction logs, don't you? And that it implements transactional integrity, so, for example, will roll back an incomplete transaction?". Blank stares. "Really? Huh, we just assumed it wouldn't have those features because it's not a real database". Well thanks, guys, for doing your homework and being Oracle defensive on the basis of a good solid knowledge of the issues. At least SQL Server doesn't store internal passwords in a table that I can easily run a SELECT query on. Yes, I know they're encrypted -- but SQL Plus is quite happy to allow me to copy and paste the encrypted password into the authentication dialog and accept that as a valid logon.

SQL Server? (5, Interesting)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699689)

Does the SQL Server mean MS-SQL?

I would have liked to see SQL vs non-SQL ranking too.

Re:SQL Server? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699757)

>Americain

Is that a drug?

Re:SQL Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699762)

SQL Server is Microsoft.

Re:SQL Server? (1)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699763)

Does the SQL Server mean MS-SQL?

Yes, in this case - look at the "Vendor" column. Note that in the past both MS and Sybase called their database "SQL Server", nowadays Sybase calls it "Adaptive Server". Sybase IQ is highly optimized for DSS work, where as AS is optimized for OLTP.

Re:SQL Server? (3, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699856)

Typical Microsoft calling their product something generic that should apply to any SQL server. Almost like calling a product .. Windows.

Re:SQL Server? (4, Informative)

azaris (699901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699943)

Typical Microsoft calling their product something generic that should apply to any SQL server. Almost like calling a product .. Windows.

It was originally called Sybase SQL Server but was later picked up by MS who adapted the name. Typical /. objectivity.

Hang on ... (0)

BillsPetMonkey (654200) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699702)

My organisation is an order, statement and invoice processing/clearing company ($5bn worth of transactions a year) and our database is 100GB.

The largest in the survey is 30GB.

Is my organisation the new record holder?

Re:Hang on ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699713)

30TB, like tera

Re:Hang on ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699718)

30000 it is..

Re:Hang on ... (1)

lewp (95638) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699723)

Leaving off a couple zeroes, my friend. Largest database in the survey is 30,000GB. Not to mention, of course, that you probably have to actually request to be included in these tallies. There could very well be much larger databases (maybe government agencies with three letters in their name?) that are unknown to the people running these numbers.

Re:Hang on ... (1)

mritunjai (518932) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699731)

Nope. not even by a large measure.

France Telecom's Oracle database is around 30 TB in size (29,232 GB.. thats a comma not a decimal point).

Re:Hang on ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699745)

AT&T's came in a 93TB under one of those metrics. I think that is a lot of freaking data. More porn and mp3's that I could ever aspire to own for sure.

Re:Hang on ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699739)

Look again, the largest database in the survey is 30 Terabyte.

Re:Hang on ... (2, Informative)

Mr. Dop (708162) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699778)

Nope, you dont even quallify:

In order to qualify for the TopTen program consideration, any commercial production database implementation was required to feature a minimum of 500GB of data for Microsoft Corp.'s Windows and NT platforms and 1TB of data for all other platforms.

Spam databases (2, Insightful)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699705)

I wonder how many of the spammers allowed their databases to be evaluated for this list.

Re:Spam databases (1)

SnowWolf2003 (692561) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699866)

Why would a spammer be even close to making this list. They likely only need one big table containing the email address. The rest of the supporting tables would be relatively small.

No IMS? (4, Interesting)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699714)

I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in IMS? Seriously though, I am surprised that an IMS system isn't on the list. Probably because it isn't relational, and the people making the list figure that RDBMS are the only DB around.

Re:No IMS? (2, Funny)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699740)

I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in IMS?

looks like you got a typo in your question there. let me fix it for you.

I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in MS?

Re:No IMS? (1)

holviala (124278) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699796)

I thought that 90% of the world's data was irretrievably trapped in IMS?
WTF? IMS? IMNAAL!

(Uh.... my head hurts..... what's this IMS anyway?)

Re:No IMS? (5, Informative)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699881)

Google is your friend. [google.com]

IMS is the database that was used to keep track of things for the moonshot. It is an IBM product. It is hierarchical as opposed to relational. Because of this it can do certain things very quickly, though in general it isn't as flexible as say DB2. Because it has been around so long, applications where having a DB was really important tend to have bought IMS a long time ago and developed systems around it. If your system is old enough, large enough and still works well for you there is no need to migrate to relational. Most of the world's financial transactions pass through an IMS system at some point. It is very stable and has uptimes that measure in years if not decades by now.

Because of this I am surprised that it is not on the list. There are really big IMS databases out there that run a lot of transactions. Because it isn't relational there is some bigotry against it and it is ignored in the popular press.

telemarketers (1)

donnyspi (701349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699721)

Based on all the hype about the national Do Not Call registry, I would have expected to see that up there somewhere. Then again, it probably consists of like one table and 3 fields. It certainly would qualify as a very popular database.

Re:telemarketers (1)

stripmarkup (629598) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699917)

A phone number is 10 digits in length. Suppose the database was extremely popular and had one phone number for each person in the US. That's 3 GB, without any sort of compression. It fits on a DVD.

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Cenuij (526885) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699725)

OK so this is obviously only vendors of databases and RDBMS systems.

In a broader sense aren't such things as the wayback machine [archive.org] a database? What about the truly massive amounts of data gathered at research labs, e.g. CERN [web.cern.ch]. Who's the daddy of these guys?

wintercorp climbing up the ratings now.. (1)

maharg (182366) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699727)

I would imagine that the Winter Corporation's db is now climbing up the peak performance for online transactions right now ;o)

Join the Simoniker Fan Club! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699730)

SFC (SIMONIKER FAN CLUB) is the first organization which
gathers SIMONIKER FANS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being SIMONIKER FANS.

Are you INTELLIGENT?
Are you a SLASHDOT READER?
Are you an INTELLIGENT SLASHDOT READER?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then the SFC (SIMIONIKER FAN CLUB) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join SFC (SIMONIKER FAN CLUB ) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time SFC member.
SFC (SIMONIKER FAN CLUB ) is the fastest-growing SIMONIKER FAN community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of SFC if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 2 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of Simonikers list of stories [slashdot.org] and read them.

Second, you need to join the official SFC irc channel #SFC on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #SFC, the official SIMONIKER FAN CLUB irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.

If you have mod points and would like to support SFC, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by a proud member of SFC

Re:Join the Simoniker Fan Club! (-1, Flamebait)

dominick (550229) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699774)

I'll give you a SIMONIKER right up the butthole you spamming bitch.

What surprised me... (5, Interesting)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699735)

I have none, nada, zip experience in big databases. But it surprised me that the peak workloads were measured in 100s of concurrent queries. If I had to make a wild guess, I would have guessed 10s of thousands. My blessed ignorance destroyed.

Re:What surprised me... (1)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699760)

Anybody know how many concurrennt queries slashdot gets at peak?

It would be an interesting reference point.

Re:What surprised me... (1)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699829)

Anybody know how many concurrennt queries slashdot gets at peak? It would be an interesting reference point.

I agree, it would.

I wouldn't be able to take a stab at the actual numeric value for your answer, but I believe that Slashdot (as most large, content-driven websites need to do) caches a lot of data, so that it doesn't need to be queried out of the database every single time somebody requests the page. That greatly cuts down on the actual number of queries being slung at the database.

Re:What surprised me... (5, Informative)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699828)

I have none, nada, zip experience in big databases.

S'okay, I have plenty :-)

But it surprised me that the peak workloads were measured in 100s of concurrent queries. If I had to make a wild guess, I would have guessed 10s of thousands. My blessed ignorance destroyed.

You would typically see tens of thousands (or more) of concurrent connections to a middleware layer - like Tuxedo - which would then multiplex them down to hundreds of connections to the database. This is because there is a lot of latency in establishing a connection, in fact logging in often takes an order of magnitude longer than running an actual query, yet few users submit transactions nonstop. So there is no sense in maintaining tens of thousands of expensive user contexts on the DB server, and there is no sense in requiring intermittent (relatively speaking) users to log out after a short idle period. Middleware does nothing but manage concurrent user contexts, and it can do so very efficiently. A database can't, because it tries to preallocate as much context as it can, and that doesn't match real-world usage patterns, and anyway, database vendors concentrate on their SQL engines and leave middleware vendors to manage the rest.

Of course, if you are a big database vendor, you probably also sell middleware, but there's no-one who tries to bundle the two into one, any more than you'd want a web server to have its own filesystem.

What about the WWW? (1)

dinnerkraft (663360) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699737)

Shouldn't the World Wide Web be ranking 1st with its huge pr0n database?

Re:What about the WWW? (1)

dilby (725275) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699921)

How about www.archive.org [archive.org]?

Makes you wonder what the hell kind of data France Telecom is storing....

Yes, Jean-Pierre on the 11 December 2003 at 11:03pm you called "Chaud et Sauvage" escorts and ordered a brunette 5'6", to arrive wearing a Napolean hat, snorkel and flippers.....

Re:What about the WWW? (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699970)

'cause you can't do SELECT * FROM files WHERE category_id IN (SELECT id FROM category WHERE subtopic = 'Pornography');... this ranking is for, I think, RDBMSes and not mere data storages. It's easy to pile up data, it's harder to actually organize and query it =)

29 TB is the biggest? (3, Interesting)

epiphani (254981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699741)

I honestly doubt that 29.2 Terabytes is the biggest database in the world. But anyway...

I recognize Oracle and DB2, but could someone give a brief synopsis of what the other database systems are? And what is an MPP archetype?

Re:29 TB is the biggest? (4, Informative)

Peridriga (308995) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699779)

Well... if you actually read the article it clearly states that 29.2 is not the largest...

You can find the link to the article yourself but

  1. AT&T @ 94.3TB
  2. Amazon @ 34.2TB

Re:29 TB is the biggest? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699934)

So, its unclassified dbase "competition" just like top 500 supercomputers are the unclassified?

IMHO with dozens of years, FBI and NSA would be top in petabyte levels.

Re:29 TB is the biggest? (1)

leomekenkamp (566309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699848)

Let's see:

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 828,293 - Objectivity DB - Cluster - Objectivity - Sun - Sun

You can find that under 'database size, hybrid'. Note that this is an object database and as such will never be found under one of the 'number of rows' entries, simply because rows are relational and an object base simply stores objects.

I believe that CERN has got a huge odbms also.

Re:29 TB is the biggest? (5, Interesting)

mountainhouse (561889) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699858)

I think the NCR Teradata approach is one of the most interesting. It is made up of a number of nodes (each quad Intel processor systems with separate memory and disk), each broken down into a number of logical machines. Data is hashed across all the nodes in the systems based on the data's indexing. So if two tables have the same indexing the join takes place at the "logical machine" level, and then the result is spooled together. The largest systems approach 300 nodes, with over 2,000 logical machines and 150 Tb of disk (some used to duplicate tables in case of node failure).

Personally, it has it's drawbacks, but if the indexing is right, you can join hundred million row tables at amazing speed. Based on my experience in data warehousing, it's performance Oracle can't touch (no, I'm not paid by NCR...just a user).

http://www.teradata.com

Overview:
http://www.teradata.com/t/go.aspx/?id =84960

The truely largest DBs in the World (0, Funny)

dominick (550229) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699743)

1. SCO's database of threatening Lawsuits
2. The United States DoD of truly amazing useless shit
3. Slashdot's collection of slashdotted sites.
3. My pr0n database tops the chart at 437 nonabytes.

http://www.nonabyte.org

Ride on my dear friend. Ride on!

Switches (2, Funny)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699750)

AT&T 94,305GB Daytona SMP AT&T Sun Sun

I wonder how much of this database is everytime users have switched to and from AT&T to get those cash bonuses!

Wow... begging for a good Slashdotting (-1, Troll)

Tiassa (632878) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699752)

I wrote up a brief summary of the top three winners in each category for those too lazy to browse the interactive WinterCorp chart
... which, of course, got /.ed instantly.
Congratulations.

Re:Wow... begging for a good Slashdotting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699857)

Yeh... anyone care to post a google cache link of dat?

What about an image-based DBs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699754)

Seems to me that an image DB would be one of the largest on the net these days.

Case in point - look at all the goatse.cx mirrors there are.

94.3TB!?!?! (4, Interesting)

Peridriga (308995) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699756)

I know where I work we recently (for an IT pat on the back) calculated our total network accessiable storage capacity and came in at a rough estimate of about 150TB. Now that is a giant swarth of data and a decent amount is in databases (MSSQL farm) but, scattered across 1000's of DB's.

It takes a truely amazing staff to maintain (backup, adminisister, maintence, sit and stare at screens) the servers and maintain the integrity of the data but, good lord...

A 94.3TB database? My upmost, and highest kudo's to those DBMA's and admins there. That is one gigantic task to operate. Being it's AT&T and assuming a great deal is billing and maintence functions these have to be up I'm sure a good 3 nines if not greater.

Regardless of the result of the study, which without actually reading the entire study the end results are simply a short-read of a geek pissing contest, I find it truely amazing how much work, man-hours, and midnight pager calls go into maintaining these databases. I know I don't want our DBMA's jobs and certainly wouldn't want to be a DBMA on a 94.3TB farm but, I know those that do and love doing it. It's a speciality skill and apparently these guys do it right...

Kudos...

Re:94.3TB!?!?! (1)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699837)

I agree, this is amazing. What's even more amazing is looking at the vendor: AT&T. This is a home grown RDBMS! They not only maintain the largest database, but write the software that makes it run!!!

Re:94.3TB!?!?! (1)

swb (14022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699843)

I always wonder about large systems like that. They develop procedures and policies and a whole layer of bureaucracy to try and keep a firm grip on them, but they always seem to become an entity unto themselves that just *seems* to be under control, when it reality no two or three guys have enough access and enough experience with the thing to know exactly what's there.

Or maybe I just lack imagination...

Re:94.3TB!?!?! (2, Funny)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699928)

they always seem to become an entity unto themselves that just *seems* to be under control, when it reality no two or three guys have enough access and enough experience with the thing to know exactly what's there.

Turns out after AT&T deleted an ex-employee's porn, mp3, and warez stash he was hiding in his own personal table they were able to optimize the database down to about 3GB of customer billing data. You just can't find good help these days.

Re:94.3TB!?!?! (2, Funny)

milamber.net (188526) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699948)

Being it's AT&T and assuming a great deal is billing and maintence functions

Oh how naive! It may be AT&T but the DB will still be run by a bunch of nerds...

"Right, boss needs a client list"
.. login... ok..

> use bigassdb;
> show tables;
games
porn
mp3s
films
tv
other

..
"Ok clients must be in here somewhere..."

Archive.org not on the list? (4, Interesting)

CompWerks (684874) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699764)

They claim to have over 300tb of data.

Quote:
"The Internet Archive Wayback Machine contains over 300 terabytes of data and is currently growing at a rate of 12 terabytes per month." Taken from here [archive.org]

Re:Archive.org not on the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699861)

There's a difference between data storage and a database.

Re:Archive.org not on the list? (2, Informative)

Agent 00p (568873) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699879)

They don't have to put all their data into one database, though ...,

Re:Archive.org not on the list? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699906)

but they're not running a big Oracle or IBM style database, they're using a content management and static file system.

SMP? (1, Funny)

zm (257549) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699786)

France Telecom uses Oracle Corp. as its DBMS, Hewlett-Packard Co. as its storage and system vendor, and employs an SMP (symbol manipulation program) architecture.

A case of acronym confusion, I guess. :-)

Re:SMP? (1, Funny)

Trbmxfz (728040) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699891)

> > SMP (symbol manipulation program) architecture.
> A case of acronym confusion, I guess. :-)

Indeed. Surely they meant "Service Mediation Platform" or possibly "Sex, Money, Power"...

Check the hybrid databases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699792)

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center - 828 293 GB. Almost 30 times more than in France Telecom's database.

anonymous DB2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699813)

I wonder if the anonymous DB2 database is microsoft's PC activation/snoopware database?

bull! ms sql should have been 1st! (1)

agwis (690872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699820)

Especially in the peak workload category. I seen a lot of ms sql databases working overtime when slammer first came out!

Kazaa Network's.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699826)

... database? Or is p2p not really a database... per se?

Sure there are a lot of redundant (read: hilton video) files, however there's something like 4,627,200GB of data available.

or... not...

Anonymous (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699834)

Not only does Anonymous say a lot of things and write some music and paint, but he also has one of the world's largest databases.

Other factors? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699841)

While it is nice to see the ranking in terms of size and usage, it would be nice if the survey ranked other factors like maintenance time and number of users to see how they really compare in operation. Largest number of OLTP might signify lower downtime but maybe not.

Ooops... (1)

jarpak (207004) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699854)

The guy who did the summary is going to have a bill on his way... :)

Quote: "If this is your website please contact Verve Hosting"

And Verve hosting address is billingadmin@vervehosting.com...

JP

pateNTdead eyecon0meter: wwworld's biggest crooks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7699867)

ideNTified? just kidding, you already really know who they are?

unprecedented evile/corepirate nazis/softwar thugs (Score:mynuts won, there can be only won?)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12, @06:04AM (#7699252)
cloning each other/themselves?

they need to .continually refresh the suppLIE of wannabe fraudulent phonIE monIE billyonerrors, as the # of those with felony grand larcenIE indictmeNTs pending, or already sentenced, & on 'probation', grows daily.

no matter, as the unprecedented evile execrable's clones are greed/fear/ego based also, they are no match for the creators' newclear power, & planet/population rescue mandates..

actually, this stuff is unbreakable, operates seamlessly on several (more than 3) dimensions, & offers unlimited energy to build on.

a real nightmare for the whoreabull payper liesense corepirate nazi softwar gangster stock markup fraud execrable/walking dead contingent.

for each of the creators' innocents harmed, there is a badtoll that must/will be repaid by you/US, as the greed/fear/ego based perpetraitors of the life0cide against the planet/population, will not be available to make reparations.

felonious softwar gangsters hoping to freeze time? (Score:0)

by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 11, @06:35AM (#7688518 [slashdot.org])

buy striking DOWn UN motion to promote gnu/free stuff to developing nations.

they
seem to have hit the eXPanding georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi
execrable moretoll bullock. it's really just a sintax (t)error, whereas
the fuddites' infactdead process, keeps replacing the 'one' in one
wwworld, with won.

lookout bullow. continued pretending does not help/makes things worse?, if that's even possible.

united? nations? just won?

robbIE rumoured to be corepirate nazi clone? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12, @06:53AM (#7699395)
eXPerimeNT(r)oll, version won, of course.

the process has 'advanced' to transform bodIEs of regular folks into greed/fear/ego based puppets/ediots/droids. those slymebawls over at phonIE monIE .controll just waved their 'magic' WAnD in front of lairIE/robbIE et AL, & 'stuff that matters' turned/weNT right into the nazis' payper liesense windows/gadgets, ala LeRegister.

lookout bullow. there's nothing behind the ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup fraud 'curtain'. not even a little 'man'.

consult
with/trust in yOUR creators.... the light itself, is not frozen, but
does function just as well in extremely low temperatures, all the
way down to mynuts won? see you there?

And in other news... (1)

iapetus (24050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699886)

Winter Corp's own results database shoots to number one in the 'Peak Workload' rankings after being linked to from Slashdot...

Doh! (2, Funny)

Dilaudid (574715) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699887)

I wrote up a brief summary of the top three winners in each category for those too lazy to browse the interactive WinterCorp chart

Hmm - how to /. your own website in one simple step?

Only WIndows and Unix? (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699892)

Boy is the slanted. I work on Large IBM machines with DB2 built-in... Were are those?

Some one lese wrote about google, it should be in this listing too, even if it is using a in-house developed DB.

Platforms: Windows or Unix... BAH!

SMP? (4, Informative)

paulbd (118132) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699893)

does anybody believe that the "SMP" used in reference to the French Telecom DB means "symbol manipulation program" rather than "symmetric multiprocessing"? how are we supposed to take seriously a study (or at least a report about the study) where they just look up acronyms with no understanding?

should it really have been traditional ranking? (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699916)

Some things in life are scored 1-10
Some are scored 10-1

shouldn't the overall best performer have been ranked 1984? and the rest from there?

Genomic databases (2, Interesting)

xplenumx (703804) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699927)

I'm absolutely shocked that the NCBI's [nih.gov] (National Center for Biotechnology Information - part of the NIH) genomic and proteomic search engine BLAST [nih.gov] isn't included in the list. BLAST is consistantly used by scientists worldwide to search the genome of several organizms. I'm similarly shocked that MEDLINE / PubMed [nih.gov] isn't included as it's the primary database for searching published scientific literature. When I think of databases, I think of these two sites - not Amazon.

Do not show this to Larry ! (1)

dtio (134278) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699954)

Oracle is 1st (France Telecom). I bet larry Ellison is launching a *big* advertising campaing based on these data.

They are going to exploit this thing "ad nauseam". Wait and see.

Frightening (3, Interesting)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699957)

Why am I simultaneously frightened and amazed to note that two of the winners are the United States'customs and border patrol database and Experion's credit rating database? If you've ever checked your credit rating [nechako.bc.ca] you'd realized this company and its peers (equifax etc.) maintain a tremendous amount of information on you, and charge you to verify it. Finding out why your credit is bad, and in the case of a mistake, changing it, is an expensive and time consuming task.

Sponsorhip (1)

JimR (101182) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699960)

Anyone else notice if you go to wintercorp.com it states:

The TopTen Program is sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Oracle, Sybase, and Teradata, a division of NCR.

Makes you wonder how definitive this survey really is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...