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!

Microsoft Wants $1M of Larry Ellison

CmdrTaco posted more than 15 years ago | from the now-there-is-a-bet dept.

Microsoft 239

Jabberwocky writes "Well, it didn't happen overnight, but Microsoft claimed that on Wednesday it will be able to demonstrate that it can indeed meet the $1 million challenge issued by database arch rival Oracle in November 1998. The whole thing hinges on whether or not "anyone using Microsoft's SQL Server with a 1 terabyte TPC-D database to run a standard data-warehouse business query within 100 times of Oracle's best published performance." Microsoft is aparantly going to give it a shot using SQL Server 7.0 which it just released. "

cancel ×

239 comments

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

MS vs Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973601)

This will be amusing if this happens...

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973602)

Someone dig up that original challenge. Does Microsoft intend to actually show that their product is better than 1% of the speed of Oracle? That's what the challenge sounds like. MS would have to be an idiot to take this challenge, all they are proving is that Oracle is less than 100 times faster than the MS product. I can see the marketing now: "Oracle is only 50 times faster, not 100 times faster than our product!"

but... how are they going to show us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973603)

I'm wondering.. is this demonstration going to be on.. videotape? We can -certainly- trust them to show us a good tape, after all, they have quite a history..

What the heck is OLAP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973604)

I have seen this term before ... anyone want to clue me in?

Ha! Oracle wins either way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973605)

So Micro$oft is gonna come out and say "we're not 100 times slower, we are only 99 times slower".
Way to go!

So MS publicizes that they're slow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973606)

If M$ doesn't beat Oracle, it's a lose-lose situation either way. M$ will prove their product is inferior if they even win the million dollars but don't beat Oracle.

but... how are they going to show us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973607)

After the test....

"Hey, did I just see the word 'Oracle' blink on and off the TV screen???"

hehe

This was inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973608)

You could see this one coming a long ways away.

Micros~1 has been working on this response since about one week after Larry went and opened his big mouth. So its taken them this long to come up with an optimized dataset that can run at about the same speed as the oracle test.

My prediction is that orable will claim that the challenge is over, and micros~1 will claim victory. There will be lots of press announcements on boths sides, some more name calling, and maybe another similar challenge in the future.

As long as this challenge tied up micros~1 resources for 7 months its better in the long run for all the rest of us. Less bugs were written in that time, it all went into the FUD machine which in the long run is an excercise in futility.

Ha! G3 is faster than the PII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973609)

Check out the results on the 400 MHz G3 in PC World.

The only problem is that Steve claimed it's TWICE as fast.

What the heck is OLAP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973610)

http://www.datamation.com/PlugIn/issues/1996/april 15/04bevalgls.html

On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) is a category of software technology that enables analysts, managers and executives to gain insight into data through fast, consistent, interactive access to a wide variety of possible views of information that has been transformed from raw data to reflect the real dimensionality of the enterprise as understood by the user.

OLAP functionality is characterized by dynamic multi-dimensional analysis of consolidated enterprise data supporting end user analytical and navigational activities including:

calculations and modeling applied across dimensions, through hierarchies and/or across members
trend analysis over sequential time periods
slicing subsets for on-screen viewing
drill-down to deeper levels of consolidation
reach-through to underlying detail data
rotation to new dimensional comparisons in the viewing area

OLAP is implemented in a multi-user client/server mode and offers consistently rapid response to queries, regardless of database size and complexity. OLAP helps the user synthesize enterprise information through comparative, personalized viewing, as well as through analysis of historical and projected data in various "what-if" data model scenarios. This is achieved through use of an OLAP Server.

And the winner is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973611)

Oracle's query ran in 71 seconds.
Their challenge is "can you do it in under 2 hours?" -- 100 times longer.

IBM took that challenge. Their query ran in less than 1 second, on Intel machines running Windows NT.

Check it out at http://www.software.ibm.com/data/db2/benchmarks/ne tfinity1tb_011199.html

What the heck is OLAP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973612)

On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) is a category of software technology that enables analysts, managers and executives to gain insight into data through fast, consistent, interactive access to a wide variety of possible views of information that has been transformed from raw data to reflect the real dimensionality of the enterprise as understood by the user.

OLAP functionality is characterized by dynamic multi-dimensional analysis of consolidated enterprise data supporting end user analytical and navigational activities including:

calculations and modeling applied across dimensions, through hierarchies and/or across members
trend analysis over sequential time periods
slicing subsets for on-screen viewing
drill-down to deeper levels of consolidation
reach-through to underlying detail data
rotation to new dimensional comparisons in the viewing area

http://www.datamation.com/PlugIn/issues/1996/apr il15/04bevalgls.html

OLAP is implemented in a multi-user client/server mode and offers consistently rapid response to queries, regardless of database size and complexity. OLAP helps the user synthesize enterprise information through comparative, personalized viewing, as well as through analysis of historical and projected data in various "what-if" data model scenarios. This is achieved through use of an OLAP Server.

TPC-D is a bogus benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973613)

In the last year or so, some "methods" have become commonplace in world of TPC-D benchmarking. The upshot of these "methods" is that they make use of precomputing results, outside of the benchmark time. These "methods" are completely legal within the rules for the TPC-D benchmark (unlike Spec, TPC doesn't have any meta rules like "no cheating by following the rules but not the spirit").

The end result is that any vendor's TPC-D numbers for the last year or so are meaningless. For MS to use TPC-D to try to win the bet is typical MS distortion.

For more discussion of these TPC-D "methods" look through the last few months of discussion in comp.arch via dejanews, there is probably a lot of discussion in the database newsgroups too, but I don't normally hang out there.

When leisure suit larry made the challenge,MS said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973614)

that if they won, the $ would be donated to charity. Nice anti-MS thought though...

The whole point is, Oracle said, "look! you can commute in a Ferrari!" (the Sun machine they ran it on costs MILLIONS...) If Microsoft volleys back and can show a single server ($50000) even making a close approach to Oracle's Ferrari, the point is moot, and Microsoft, IMHO, has won. Who TF can even afford the Sun machine they tested on???

Tuesday was two days ago! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973615)

the microsoft press site says the event was scheduled for March 16, 1999. That was Tuesday. Why are there no results? The microsoft site just has some 30 minute advertisement for SQL server 7.0 (CHEESY)

hey buffoon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973616)

1: The challenge SPECIFICALLY refers to SQL Server 7.

2:You've obviously never even USED SQL 7. The thousands of companies involved in the beta have great evidence that leisure suit Larry will lose his million...

To do that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973617)

NT will have to run on the multi-million dollar HW that Oracle chose to run it's ridiculous challenge on...

SQL Failed Once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973618)

While I was at MS, the SQL Server group claimed that it was IIS's fault :)

It is faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973619)

If you throw a G3 chip to the ground, and merely drop the PII, the G3 will be substantially faster. Hey, this benchmark is no less valid than some of the other ones used.

And the winner is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973620)

I'll bet those 32 boxes were a lot cheaper than the machine from Sun
that Oracle used. I cannot imagine IBM's system costing more than 1M.

Monopoly economics and product expansion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973621)


How much money can MS continue to pour into products that are not profitable for them, like SQL Server 6.5 (a real dog)?

This revenue streams in from the monopoly they have on the desktop and then streams out to loser projects like WinCE and SQL Server.

Now that SQL Server 7.0 seems to be a better product, it might actually not be a losing proposition like 6.5 was. But the only reason that it exists is due to the MS monopoly and marketing.

hey buffoon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973622)

Have YOU used Oracle?

Benchmarks don't count for much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973623)

Okay, so a lot of you will flame me for this, but hey, who cares, I have to respond. To be honest with you, one of the main reasons why SQL Server can't stand up to Oracle in terms of up time is because the kind of people using SQL Server don't know what the hell they are doing. I'm sure if you were to take your average SQL Server Admin and ask him to Admin an Oracle box, you'd find that they have even LESS success in keeping that up.

However, i do know a very intelligent gentleman who is a vvery highly skilled SQL Server admin. He's been running a SQL Server on a rather nice machine for a e-commerce site that gets quite a bit of traffic. That machine has been up every day for the last year except for 1) when it was moved from one building to another and 2) when the raid controller fried and had to be replaced. Our web servers crash all the time because the web coders are typical MS (L)users, but that SQL server stays up all the time.

I'm not saying that SQL server can compare in performance, but I am saying that on a properly configured machine, administered by a real admin, it can have very nice uptimes.

sam wilson
swilson@bugs.cs.wcupa.edu

Custom Tuned Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973624)

Well, just like in the antitrust case, the setup is behind closed doors.. so they probably have a subset of sqlserver running and coded the sample in directly and say its sqlserver that everyone can buy, I would like to see then use an out of the box installation.. I don't trust ms...

the other thing is, it will be interesting to see what data they are going to use and whether they will have a pre-run test and just announce results..

hey buffoon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973625)

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument...

I hope they win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973626)

Well thought out.

So who's better? The Guy in the corner with the abacus?

Microsoft? Postgresql? A GNU/Linux box with PERL searches?

Grrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973627)

None of it is open-source, so who gives a crap?! Don't talk to me unless it is OSS and it says Linux, Linux, Linux on it.

ioqweuhf!

Indepentant verification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973628)

the terms of the challenge state that it is a full
tpc-d benchmark, auditided by a certified tpc-d
person. only query 5 is used for the measure though.

TPC-D is broken because of precomputation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973629)

We all know that with current database
engines TPC-D means nothing. Oracle 8i
precomputes queries made by the benchmark.

--P

Duh... ;P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973630)

The challenge isn't just about the software, it's also about the hardware that the software can run on. SQL Server 7.0 is limited to whatever NT can run on (what... 16 processor Xeon box?). Even if Oracle was slower, it can still run on the big iron. The contest doesn't say anything about price/performance.

When absolute performance matters, Oracle will always whomp SQL Server. Then again, DB2 whomps them all.

With advents like beowulf, big iron is having less of an impact these days, maybe MS will get SQL Server to cluster some day...

I wonder how much of a fix this one will be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973631)


I imagine that M$ will use SQL 7.0 on some v.big alpha system running a beta of NT 5.0 -- and then just tweak it for speed.

Hey, you forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973632)

Don't leave out Steve Ballmer! He is to Bill Gates what Darth Vader is to the Emperor!

SQL Failed Once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973633)

Actually they say they have over 300 million rows of data... still no big deal. We host approx. 10 million rows of music data and many GB of images and sound clips on our server [harmonyhouse.com] , with far less hardware than terraserver. Even so, MS SQL 6.5 really struggled to handle it.

We stepped back to using MS Access for the music data. The site is far easier to manage and-- guess what-- pages load faster.

I can't wait until we are on Linux with Oracle8...

This could actuallt work against MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973634)

the terms of the challenge are that a full, audited 1TB tpc-d test is run, with a certified tpc-d person as auditor. The challenge only uses query-5 from the test, but that it gets compared to oracles 'BEST' published result for this. Oracle look to have been preparing for this too.
oracle own result is 100 times better than when the challenge was issued , but the database load time has nearly doubled, so some cunning indexes are now in place.

when the challenge was issued:
database load ~30hours , query5 = 71.4 sec
january
database load 38hours, query5 = 4.3 sec
february
database load 47hours, query5 = 0.7 sec

the target moves, and microsoft now only have to be as good as Oracle were when the challenge was issued.

if MS can cache 1GB, of a six table join, with arbitrary date and region selections then they deserve some praise.

Hardware RAID controllers suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973635)

EMC is at the dead end because network-like
storage is the answer to the performance needs
of upcoming servers.

But their current controllers are quite nice.
I hope EMC can capitalize on current revenue
and bring up a good aside-from-datapath,
switch-based controller.

--P

GNU/Grrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973636)

Shouldn't it say "GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux" ?

SQL Failed Once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973637)

I think you've missed the boat on this one.
The "Terra" in TerraServer doesn't have anything
to do with the data size. It has to do with the
Earth. Terra == Earth. Besides who the hell
doesn't like to look up their hometown on MS'
terraserver?

What is all the fuss about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973638)

Funny. According to Microsoft, they already have met the challenge. In fact, if you go to http://www.microsoft.com [microsoft.com] , you'll be able to read their propaganda about how well they matched Oracle's mark. If this is true then then Oracle really shot themselves on the foot (mouth, etc.). To get even just half the performance of Oracle at less than 1/16th of the original cost is quite an impressive performance. Oh by the way, who would be crazy enough to buy a SQL Server 7 to serve up terrabytes of data? Then again, who would be crazy enough to pay so much money when a comparable performance can be had for cheaper from other DBMS vendors?

MySQL not in the picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1973639)

Nice... I had no idea that MySQL was so capable...

Makes a great competitor! (To Access)

Validity of Offer (1)

dmd (404) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973717)

The challenge specifically refers to SQL Server 7.


--

Not Quite Dumb (1)

Thornton (600) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973718)

While for folks like me (a sysadmin for a web shop) this type of big muscle flexing seems pointless, there are folks out there who are getting terabyte-sized databases, and need a real system to manage it.

Microsoft wants us to believe that NT and MS SQL can scale ... and Oracle wants to prove that they can't.

As for mySQL ... I don't think that it even comes close to supporting terabyte sized databases, so a comparison is kind of pointless. mySQL is fast with smaller databases (a gig or less), and that is where it is best used and considered.

Let's count the change.... (1)

Thornton (600) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973719)

say that MS only need to increase the cost of their system by a factor of 50 to match the Oracle performance.

Oracle's whole argument is that Microsoft simply cannot scale ... not with any amount of money ... Oracle has conceeded that Microsft may be able to provide a cheaper solution, but they argue that for a high-end solution, you simply can't use Microsoft's products.

Let's count the change.... (1)

Enry (630) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973720)

Okay, so MS says they can make a server that is 1/100 the speed of Oracle and Spitfire (or solar flare, or whatever Sun calls that beefy box) for 1/16 the price ($600,000 instead of $10mil).

Okay, so let's say that they can do that. Let's also be *real* generous and say that MS only need to increase the cost of their system by a factor of 50 to match the Oracle performance.

This means that MS has to spend $600,000*50=$30,000,000 to match what Oracle could do for 1/3 the price. And that's being generous!

MS: 1/100 the performance for 1/16 the price.

Ha! (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973722)

Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

Reminds ME of Steve Jobs saying ANYTHING.

I hope they win (1)

jabbo (860) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973727)

Oracle is trash.

SQL Failed Once... (1)

Matthew Weigel (888) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973728)

Ummm... so 1000 Gigabyte-sized images? Didn't know we'd hit that point already...

Custom Tuned Hack (1)

mholve (1101) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973730)

Who knows if M$ hacked up SQL Server 7 to take advantage of things and sway the results in their favor? Remember when graphics card manufacturers made their drivers tuned for benchmark programs?

Ya but,... (1)

tak* (1121) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973731)

You know what would happen. Steve would convince Larry to kill Bill and Steve would finish the exhausted Larry off! Then Steve would rule the computer industry! Woo hoo! Yikes.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.

And it cost M$ how much? (1)

Tupper (1211) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973733)

Besides, Oracle probably came up with some funky test that will most definitely slow to a crawl on M$'s server... It's rather comical.

No, its a reasonable multitable join on a large dataset. It doesn't seem out of line to me. They did throw a big box at it--- which MS can't do. But then, that lack of scalability to huge hardware is the point.

SQL Failed Once... (1)

Stu Charlton (1311) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973734)

What, that gigabyte images were used? They're actually common in more areas than GIS: professional digital graphics processing for instance, uses files that are in the hundreds of megabytes for increased colour-depth (like above 32 bit)...

Tee Hee (1)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973738)

Well, it ought to be more fun than the Lewis / Holyfield contest, anyway...

:-)

I bet is that MS will do it, although possibly not by very much. Seemed like a hell of a boast on Oracle's part...

MySQL not in the picture (1)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973739)

I'm not certain, but I think the benchmark test (which they did publish) does all sorts of stuff that MySQL can't even do.

Like, transactions, select into, select where in, and so forth.

Much (most?) of the reason MySQL is so fast is that it doesn't need to log everything it does, because it doesn't let you roll anything back.

When leisure suit larry made the challenge,MS said (1)

shine (1502) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973740)

What, you mean you don't have one at your home?

What the hell do you expect? (1)

MeAtHereDotCom (1511) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973741)

HELLO. Give any software company a few months and they will be able to make their software faster JUST for this specific time. Sure, tweak source until you get it the fastest possible, tweak source, hardware, hardware, source. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't legit, or Oracle should get 6 months to make their software faster too.

Blah.

560 disk drives!!! (1)

Matts (1628) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973742)

From microsoft's press release on this it says they used 560 disk drives to do the test. Holy shit. That's a lot of drives...

Still, it looks like MS SQL Server proved Oracle wrong (as I was pretty sure they would). But I'm afraid it looks like they used a modified SQL Server to do it. I still say that it's because of SQL Server's heritage (Sybase) that it's fast. I'd be willing to be money that Sybase would kick Oracle's butt on this test if they used materialised views (and equivalent hardware) too.

Matt.

1/100 of the performance for 1/16 of the price? (1)

singularity (2031) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973746)

M$ is happy because it says that Oracle is treating it as competition, but, when it scomes down to it, the system M$ is going to use is going to 1/16 of the the price of the Oracle solution (admittedly a lot lower) but is going to struggle to beat the 1/100th performance that Oracle wants?

Leave it to M$ to distort the truth.

And the winner is... (1)

Exanter (2171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973747)

Umm, IBM wasn't using SQL Server 7.0, like the oracle challenge states...

As another note, for that it only took 128 Xeon processors, not too cheap in its own right. Finally the Sun or SGI solution will be a hell of a lot more stable...

wheee...

M$ doesn't have a chance, unless... (1)

rbf (2305) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973749)

M$ doesn't have a chance, unless they ran it on a Compaq AlphaServer 8400 (or GS140). Then they might have a chance, of course Oracle could then just run their database on the same machine...


JMHO,

rbf

--
LONG LIVE ALPHA!!!

Hand-coded? (1)

Digital Commando (2881) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973755)

if(is_oracle_challenge(parsetree)) do_fast_oracle_query();

It wouldn't be the first time a commercial product contains benchmark-specific optimizations. :-)

Wish I would have placed the bet (1)

Chardros (3099) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973757)

I could use $1 Million.

And it cost M$ how much? (2)

Mickey Jameson (3209) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973758)

It probably cost them tens of millions of dollars to develop their new and "improved" SQL server. What's $1 million back?
Besides, Oracle probably came up with some funky test that will most definitely slow to a crawl on M$'s server... It's rather comical.

David Copperfield presents! (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973759)

Oh, and anybody acually register and SEE the results of the competition?

Live!

Before your very eyes!

The Man who made the statue of Liberty dissapear, presents the latest Microsoft benchmarks!

Who cares about this challenge... (1)

gambit (3767) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973760)

Both Gates and Ellison are manipulative megalomaniacs.

Hell, I say throw them AND Steve Jobs in a ring and let's have an old fashiond Texas Death Cage match and kill the survivors!

Ya but,... (1)

gambit (3767) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973761)

No, no..you didn't read the last part of my first post. We kill the survivors at the end, thereby eliminating egomaina, megalomania and freeing the minds and hands of computing forever...hahahahaha

but... how are they going to show us? (1)

Akira1 (5566) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973766)

its a self fulfilling prophecy
=)

The Challenge (1)

bgarrett (6193) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973767)

The challenge, as I recall, was specifically directed at SQL Server v7. The fact that IBM's DB2 system sticks it to Oracle is nice, but inconsequential :)

And as far as the pricetag for the server hardware... it's price/performance, not the actual pricetag, that will probably influence a lot of big corporate buyers. If you REALLY NEED a DBMS that can do a query over a terabyte of data in 1 second or less, you will have a budget to get whatever ballsy hardware you need :)

Long live big iron.

Not 71 seconds anymore (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973769)

Oracle's latest results on TPC-D are reported as 0.71 seconds (using materialized views).

TPC-D has been sussed & superseded as a reliable benchmark, they're talking about splitting it into TPC-R (just like current TPC-D) and TPC-H (which is truer to the ad hoc nature of the original test).

Ha! (1)

Signal 11 (7608) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973771)

I have to admit - Microsoft has considerable gall. But Oracle did set themself up for this.. if it works.. they'll have major egg on their face. Reminds me of Steve Jobs proclaiming the G3 faster than the PII.

--

It's over... (1)

primebase (9535) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973779)

I believe that Oracle's already closed down the $1 million dollar offer after about a 3-4 month time with no takers at all!

Still, I'd like to see the results. I don't think M$ has a chance, so this should be amusing...

Indepentant verification (1)

Irishman (9604) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973780)

I wonder if MS will allow someone other than themselves to setup and run this demo. As others have stated, they do not have a stellar track record for videotaped evidence.

The fact that MS is doing it this way suggests that they have already done the benchmark, and they have figured out a way they think they can turn this to their advantage. So don't be too surprised if they blow the benchmark away, (just don't ask them how they did it, I am sure this would just be a waste of time.)

Who cares about this challenge... (1)

MaxwellsSilverHammer (10318) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973783)

"Three men entah, one man leaves!"
"Three men entah, one man leaves!"
"Three men entah, one man leaves!"

Where is MadMAx?

Yes but they weren't using a MS database product. (1)

GeekBoy (10877) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973785)

Read the article. It says they used IBM's BD2
not Miscrosofts database software. This
challenge was about ORACLE vs Microsoft not
ORACLE vs IBM. Also, IBM used a 32 node cluster
of their netfinity and db2 servers to accomplish
this.

Quote: "32-node configuration used in this benchmark" IT used GigaNet's cLAN DB2 and IBM's serial storage Architecture.

Each Netfinity server has 4 Xeon processors each with 2MB onchip cache. In total that's 128 with 64 megs of on chip cache.

Oracle's machine used only 64 processors.

IBM DIDN'T WIN.
********************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu

Interesting that it was Microsoft... (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973787)

...that finally met the challenge.

Wasn't one of the points that Larry Ellison trying to make that Microsoft was effectively prohibiting end-users from performing this type of benchmark that would ultimately show the MS product in a bad light. (Did the EULA claim that such a benchmark constitute some sort of reverse-engineering or something?) I seem to recall some discussion that whoever might claim the $1M might find themselves in legal trouble with MS.

Only 99 times slower? (1)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973789)

Has MicroSoft said how much slower they think they'll be?

GNU SQL. (1)

Azul (12241) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973790)

Yeah!

Both of those products are propietary software. I couldn't care less about who wins.

GNU SQL will beat them all once its ready. Yes, GNU is creating its own SQL database.

Azul

SQL Failed Once... (2)

flanker (12275) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973793)

Yes, what a joke that site is. A terabyte of data - but its like 1000 really big pictures. Ooo it
really takes a powerful RDBMS to keep track of
1000 pieces of information. Access might even be
able to do it.

don't worry about version number (1)

sbuckhopper (12316) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973794)

just as in the famous Win98 demo, I'm sure sure that M$ will get a wonderful blue screen of death when they try this challange...

after all, do you really thing that they have anywhere near all the bugs worked out of SQL Server 7, and then trying to tweek it on top of that???

perhaps using the new version will work against them.
---

Official Microsoft Statament (1)

samael (12612) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973795)

This was at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/0 3-16sql.htm

There's also a long piece on how they think Oracle tried to skew the contest. It's interesting, but I don't know nearly enough about high end servers to comment.


This month, as part of the premiere event of the "getting Results" Web cast series, Microsoft released its response time to the same query issued in the Challenge, announcing that it had achieved an execution time of 1.075 seconds on query five, significantly faster than Oracle's original mark and on par with Oracle's recent result of 0.7 seconds. Microsoft's results were achieved using Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 Enterprise Edition for a total cost of less than $600,000.

"Our solution not only matches Oracle's performance, but it does so at about one-sixteenth the price," says Leland. "It demonstrates that Microsoft offers powerful data warehousing and business intelligence solutions at a cost of ownership that is in line with real-world business realities. That's the core of our approach: to provide business solutions that drive down the cost of ownership and maximize return."

100 times slower? (1)

Jonathan White (15086) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973798)

Come on people, try to at least read the article before asking stupid questions. They are going to justify SQL Server as better based upon price. MS is not stupid, they write shitty operating systems but they aren't stupid.


At that time, Tong predicted, "Larry's multimillion-dollar computer will beat our $50,000 one by two-tenths of a second, because it's his test. It's likely that the cost of
the Oracle database software alone will be more than the whole thing for Microsoft, including SQL Server, consulting, software, and hardware."

This could actuallt work against MS (1)

Sensor (15246) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973799)


hmmm, just a thought does this test say what the preconditions are? If SQL server is vaugely sensible it will act like oracle and cache query results....

can anyone guess what would happen if M$ where to run the test query 10 mins before anybody comes through the door - and then runs it again having done nothing in the meantime.

maybe I'm a cynic, but....

Tom

And the winner is... not IBM (1)

strider5 (15284) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973801)

the challenge was not extended to intel platform data warehouses, rather SPECIFICALLY to SQL Server 7.0

IBM only showed that they can spank Oracle with DB2.

This could actuallt work against MS (2)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973803)

One, I think they're doing it for the money =)

Two, Oracle could turn around and point out that MS struggled and strained just to *finally* come within a factor of 100 of Oracle's wares...


Microsoft needs to do more than get within a factor of 100, if they don't get within a factor of 16, then Oracle still 'wins' because that is what Microsoft claims the cost-benefit of their solution vs. the Oracle one is. Even if they can do that, Oracle still wins because their solution is still going to be far more reliable.

What storage system? (1)

crow (16139) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973804)

What storage system are they using?

As an EMC employee, I hope they're using our stuff. (We make storage systems with up to 9 terabytes, and strive to have the best performance, the best reliability, and the highest prices, or something like that.)

I'm not in the part of the company that deals with such things, but I wouldn't be surprised if we have a partnership deal with Oracle, whereby their software is specially optimized for our storage systems.

When leisure suit larry made the challenge,MS said (1)

Snibor Eoj (16725) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973805)

> Who TF can even afford the Sun machine they tested on???

The people who regularly need to make queries to multi-terabyte databases can afford those machines. :-)

-Snibor Eoj

This could actuallt work against MS (2)

Gottjager (17214) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973806)

One, I think they're doing it for the money =)

Two, Oracle could turn around and point out that MS struggled and strained just to *finally* come within a factor of 100 of Oracle's wares...

Just a dumb benchmarks (1)

BogoNick (17940) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973811)

some background on the 1M challenge.
Oracle performed the test on a $16M machine (64 cpu machine if i remember correctly). No way on earth NT could be installed on such a machine (not in the near future at least.) The test was sorta partial because of way data was processed before queries were run on top of it.

How does mySQL measure up to all of this?

SQL Failed Once... (2)

yacko (19244) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973814)

If this Microsoft SQL Server is anything like the TerraServer it had on the web for satellite imaging maps.. Oracle gets to keep its million.

yacko

Database speed is but one factor (1)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973815)

I worked at a shop where the Novell/Foxpro solution was becoming unreliable and slow with around 200 users. Time to upgrade to a real database. So we shopped out, and Management chose Oracle.

The Oracle database software is great, but their consulting makes MS look even better. In fact, that's what happened - a MCSE consultant (who was setting up our T1s and Exchange connection to our parent company) got hired as IT department head, after promising to move to NT/MS SQL and rewrite the app in a few months with three VB programmers.

I left shortly afterwards to start my own company.

One year later and the VB programmers had not completely replicated the Foxpro system, but it worked, and the sales force was using it, buggy and crash prone as it was.

Oracle consulting needs to get their act together, or MS *will* catch up on their technology eventually, and MS will be the better solution. MS SQL is just Sybase, anyway... MS can throw enough money at the problem to eventually be roughly equivelent, and marketing will hide the remainder of the gap.

( In regards to the test - is the team working on this the same team that produced the videotape for the DOJ? )

Oh, and anybody acually register and SEE the results of the competition?

When leisure suit larry made the challenge,MS said (1)

zak (19849) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973816)

The guys who need the bandwidth and uptime - banks, insurance companies etc. These users need multi-TB databases and all that power.
your rationale is flawed - if a 50K$ server gets about 1/100 performance of a 5000K$, it still does not mean that their DB will scale to 5M$-worth of hardware (and MSSQL server _certainly_ does not scale linearly, not to say NT :) ).
This means that if they get to within 1/100 (or even 1/50 or whatever) on a 50K$ machine, they've still lost.

Huh? (1)

Memnoch (21035) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973818)

I can hear the headlines now.

"Following Microsofts recent cracking of the Oracle challenge, Microsoft shares rose 15 points and sales of SQL server have tripled. On a side note: 10 of the worlds largest web sites are down today quoting 'database problems' as the reason."

Databases (1)

Mr T (21709) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973819)

The fact of this matter is that MS is making a huge inroads into the database market. Their product blows compared to the big boys but they sell it for peanuts.

Oracle blows the doors off of SQL server, 100x is probably an understatment, but it's so damn expensive that people will go with the slower system (which they probably got for "free" in their MSDN subscription) Oracle and IBM are worried about MS in this market and there will be more outlandish marketing ploys like this.

Benchmarks don't count for much. (1)

irix (22687) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973820)

Ok, so it's amusing for media coverage.

The real question is what is the uptime of your database?

SQLServer only runs on NT. Ooops.

I can rely on my OS staying up. That's why big wesites run against Oracle not on NT.

... (1)

Rage Maxis (24353) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973821)

Perhaps microsoft has a trick up its sleeve ... (dont leave doctored video/results out of the equasion) ... Maybe their going to post much higher performance than one might expect?

Validity of Offer (1)

JasonGi (24778) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973822)

Does Oracle have to honor the offer since it is being done on a product that was not available at the time of the challenge?

Database speed is but one factor (1)

JimCarrier (25094) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973823)

As far as I understand Oracle, a shop of this size would not justify internal Oracle consulting, instead they would far it out to their registered development community, which is a bit hit & miss.

This model is at odds with MS, who very much support their MCSE's.

ps - MS haven't actually answered the challenge; they've just decried it as irellevant (yeah right, MS would NEVER make an irrelevant challenge...), and come up with some figures that they claim reflects the 'real world'.

j.

To do that... (1)

JimCarrier (25094) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973824)

In the world of the data center, that kind of hardware is not ridiculous - just rare!.

The whole thing just highlights yet another shortcoming of SQL6.5/7 - namely, that it has to run on NT. hahaha.

Anyone like to try & benchmark mySQL on that kind of hardware ? ;-)

j.

What the hell do you expect? (1)

draney98 (25543) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973825)

You are incredibly naive if you don't think Oracle did the exact same optimization you're accusing MS . Would any sane CEO set up a challenge like this if he hadn't already tweaked everything on his software to make it as hard to beat as possible?

A much better line of criticism is the fact that it runs on (unstable) NT server.

So MS publicizes that they're slow? (1)

GlobalEcho (26240) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973826)

It looks to me like this will just call attention to the fact that SQL Server is far slower, whatever the factor. Nobody's going to think about the hardware involved. They should wait to take the challenge until they can somehow be _faster_ than Oracle. Heh. If that ever happens.

but... how are they going to show us? (1)

Chocodile (28474) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973828)

I think that *any* MS presentation has the same credibility as one of their videotaped ones... I'm sure that even if what we are shown isn't *technically* the truth it will certainly reflect how MS thinks the world should be- which is, of course, the same way everyone else views it :)

Go Oracle! (1)

ghazban (28784) | more than 15 years ago | (#1973829)

This could humble Microsoft in the eyes of many.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>