SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle


"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1144953446 .98074@yasure.d rizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Tony Rogerson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> One factor we routinely see with Oracle is that one can take a single
> >> piece of hardware. First load Oracle on Windows XP SP2 on it and run a
> >> load. Then format the hard disk and perform the exact same test using
> >> RedHat Linux. The difference in scalability and performance is hard to
> >> miss.[/color]
> >
> > So you are comparing an OS mean't for the desktop (XP) against an OS[/color][/color]
mean't[color=blue][color=green]
> > for a server environment.[/color]
>
> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.[/color]

Actually you did by the very fact you said XP. That's an OS intended for
desktop use and as such is tuned very differently than Server 2003.
[color=blue]
>
> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.[/color]

What about 64 bit versions out of curiosity.
[color=blue]
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.

XP is a desktop OS, Windows Server editions are optimised for IO and
throughput and as such give better throughput than XP for applications like
SQL Server. There are also other considerations like, one important one is
disk cache - is it turned on / off, this will have a massive impact on
write operations.
[color=blue]
> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.[/color]

On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
(http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there!

What about the 64bit - you still aren't comparing like with like. The only
thing it clarifies is you have little experience or knowledge of the windows
platform, your skill level on windows is that of a 'user'.
[color=blue]
> I use a lot of MS products. Just not SQL Server for line-of-business
> apps. That hardly qualifies as an anti-MS bias. You just don't seem to
> like the message that there are somethings where Windows and/or SQL
> Server are not the best tool for the job. That is not my bias. That is
> the result of benchmarking.[/color]

Yes, you probably do - but as a user and not an architect or system engineer
setting and specifying kit. Your bias and anti-windows comes through on my
past experience with you and your postings and online attitude.

Your benchmarks are floored, even from what you've posted here that you used
XP that is quite evident.
[color=blue]
> Given your knowledge of Oracle and ability to set it up properly I think
> one can pretty much assume the result is predetermined.[/color]

Yes, unfortunetly you need to tweak and configure oracle to make it work
well, that is not the case with SQL Server; so long as you get the hardware
and disk configuration and placement of database files correct then you
don't have to start tweaking the engine.

And yes, my findings will be biased and for one reason - because I have no
knowledge as a SE for linux, just as you in the windows environment.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1144953446 .98074@yasure.d rizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Tony Rogerson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> One factor we routinely see with Oracle is that one can take a single
>>> piece of hardware. First load Oracle on Windows XP SP2 on it and run a
>>> load. Then format the hard disk and perform the exact same test using
>>> RedHat Linux. The difference in scalability and performance is hard to
>>> miss.[/color]
>>
>> So you are comparing an OS mean't for the desktop (XP) against an OS
>> mean't for a server environment.[/color]
>
> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.
>
> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.
>[color=green]
>> Like I say, your bias of anti-MS tunnels your judgement.[/color]
>
> I use a lot of MS products. Just not SQL Server for line-of-business
> apps. That hardly qualifies as an anti-MS bias. You just don't seem to
> like the message that there are somethings where Windows and/or SQL
> Server are not the best tool for the job. That is not my bias. That is
> the result of benchmarking.
>[color=green]
>> If I get some free time I'll try a comparison between linux and windows
>> 2003 r2 server edition which is a more comparable test.[/color]
>
> Given your knowledge of Oracle and ability to set it up properly I think
> one can pretty much assume the result is predetermined.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.[/color]
>
> Actually you did by the very fact you said XP. That's an OS intended for
> desktop use and as such is tuned very differently than Server 2003.[/color]

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/default.mspx

You tell that to Microsoft. They don't listen to me. ;-)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
>> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.[/color]
>
> What about 64 bit versions out of curiosity.[/color]

Don't have hardware available from which I can perform an
equals-to-equals evaluation. When I do ... I will.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Tony Rogerson wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.[/color]
>
> XP is a desktop OS, Windows Server editions are optimised for IO and
> throughput and as such give better throughput than XP for applications like
> SQL Server. There are also other considerations like, one important one is
> disk cache - is it turned on / off, this will have a massive impact on
> write operations.[/color]

I have a copy of 2003. I'll rerun the comparison this summer during the
break.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

> I have a copy of 2003. I'll rerun the comparison this summer during the[color=blue]
> break.[/color]

There is no point, I'd rather trust the TPC for independence instead of what
you will produce ie. a biased benchmark based on your anti-microsoft stance
and lack of technical ability with that platform.

Like I say, check out the benchmark on tpc.org.

On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
(http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there!

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1145209613 .444622@yasure. drizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Tony Rogerson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.[/color]
>>
>> XP is a desktop OS, Windows Server editions are optimised for IO and
>> throughput and as such give better throughput than XP for applications
>> like SQL Server. There are also other considerations like, one important
>> one is disk cache - is it turned on / off, this will have a massive
>> impact on write operations.[/color]
>
> I have a copy of 2003. I'll rerun the comparison this summer during the
> break.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...o/default.mspx[color=blue]
> You tell that to Microsoft. They don't listen to me. ;-)[/color]

Linking to the XP website proves only one thing - you are clutching at
straws, I might as well point to oracle.com.

If there was any technical merit in your argument you would point at an
article that explained the differences between XP Pro and the windows server
family.

The TPC benchmark seems to have fallen on deaf ears - I would prefer a
discussion on that - just how you are going to rebuke that should be very
interesting if not entertaining.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1145209558 .153613@yasure. drizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.[/color]
>>
>> Actually you did by the very fact you said XP. That's an OS intended for
>> desktop use and as such is tuned very differently than Server 2003.[/color]
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...o/default.mspx
> You tell that to Microsoft. They don't listen to me. ;-)
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> But the same test has been run against all 32bit Windows Server
>>> implementations with the same result. Hope that clarifies it.[/color]
>>
>> What about 64 bit versions out of curiosity.[/color]
>
> Don't have hardware available from which I can perform an
> equals-to-equals evaluation. When I do ... I will.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Tony Rogerson wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> I have a copy of 2003. I'll rerun the comparison this summer during the
>> break.[/color]
>
> There is no point, I'd rather trust the TPC for independence instead of what
> you will produce ie. a biased benchmark based on your anti-microsoft stance
> and lack of technical ability with that platform.[/color]

Trust TPC? ROFL!

Their benchmarks are meaningless except to marketing departments and
CTO's looking for cover for their decisions.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Tony Rogerson wrote:
[color=blue]
> If there was any technical merit in your argument you would point at an
> article that explained the differences between XP Pro and the windows server
> family.[/color]

Given that you live in a Windows only world your defense of the one
and only operating system SQL Server runs on seems a bit disingenuous.
Oracle runs on 19 separate operating systems and I routinely work with
Windows, several flavors of Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, and AIX. It matters
to an Oracle architect which o/s is used ... you, on the other hand,
have a choice of Windows or Windows. Congratulations on being able to
make that choice. Which vendor ... oh lets use Microsoft. What should
we benchmark it against? Microsoft again. And the winner is ... drum
roll please ... Microsoft Windows.
[color=blue]
> The TPC benchmark seems to have fallen on deaf ears[/color]

The ears aren't deaf? Every once in awhile we need a good laugh.

Disclaimer: I am sending this email from a Windows machine and have ton
of Microsoft products here at the U. Heck I used to teach in Mary Gates
Hall and now teach in the Paul Allen Computing Center. But give the
hyperbole a break every once in awhile. There are other competent companies.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

> Given that you live in a Windows only world your defense of the one[color=blue]
> and only operating system SQL Server runs on seems a bit disingenuous.[/color]

That 'rant' has nothing to do with the fact you chose the desktop version of
windows aka Windows XP to do your benchmark (as you have stated), my point
all along has been your benchmark is floored and obviously your knowledge
and understanding of the windows platform - I would hope that if you have
any clients outside of the classroom you don't suggest they run their
production databases on Windows XP, unless the database is required for a
single user / application, for instance a on the road salesman who stores
info locally and replicates back into the central database - which would
run, not on XP but Server editions!
[color=blue]
> I routinely work with
> Windows, several flavors of Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, and AIX. It matters
> to an Oracle architect which o/s is used[/color]

Perhaps thats what your problem is - knowledge of many, expert in none.
[color=blue]
> have a choice of Windows or Windows. Congratulations on being able to
> make that choice. Which vendor ... oh lets use Microsoft. What should
> we benchmark it against? Microsoft again. And the winner is ... drum
> roll please ... Microsoft Windows.[/color]

So long as it does what it says on the tin and is able to give my client a
business solution then it works for me (and my client).

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1145225400 .866564@yasure. drizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Tony Rogerson wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If there was any technical merit in your argument you would point at an
>> article that explained the differences between XP Pro and the windows
>> server family.[/color]
>
> Given that you live in a Windows only world your defense of the one
> and only operating system SQL Server runs on seems a bit disingenuous.
> Oracle runs on 19 separate operating systems and I routinely work with
> Windows, several flavors of Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, and AIX. It matters
> to an Oracle architect which o/s is used ... you, on the other hand,
> have a choice of Windows or Windows. Congratulations on being able to
> make that choice. Which vendor ... oh lets use Microsoft. What should
> we benchmark it against? Microsoft again. And the winner is ... drum
> roll please ... Microsoft Windows.
>[color=green]
>> The TPC benchmark seems to have fallen on deaf ears[/color]
>
> The ears aren't deaf? Every once in awhile we need a good laugh.
>
> Disclaimer: I am sending this email from a Windows machine and have ton
> of Microsoft products here at the U. Heck I used to teach in Mary Gates
> Hall and now teach in the Paul Allen Computing Center. But give the
> hyperbole a break every once in awhile. There are other competent
> companies.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Tony Rogerson (tonyrogerson@s qlserverfaq.com ) writes:[color=blue]
> There is no point, I'd rather trust the TPC for independence instead of
> what you will produce ie. a biased benchmark based on your
> anti-microsoft stance and lack of technical ability with that platform.
>
> Like I say, check out the benchmark on tpc.org.
>
> On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
> Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
> Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
> (http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there![/color]

I think I agree with DA here. TPC is good if all you want to do is
size-comparisons of male organs, but if you want to test for your actual
application, you should run your own benchmark. And keep in mind that
that benchmark applies to that application, and necessarily not any other
application.

As I understood it, DA's benchmark is for the same Oracle application
on Windows and Linux, which should be a fairly trivial benchmark to run.
(But it may say more about Oracle's implementation on the two operating
systems, that it tells about the operating systems themselves.)

Running a benchmark for the same application running SQL Server and
Oracle is a far more devilish game.



--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx

Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

DA Morgan (damorgan@psoug .org) writes:[color=blue]
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.[/color]
>>
>> Actually you did by the very fact you said XP. That's an OS intended for
>> desktop use and as such is tuned very differently than Server 2003.[/color]
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...o/default.mspx
> You tell that to Microsoft. They don't listen to me. ;-)[/color]

I may be dense, but on the top this page, it says:

TechNet Home > Products & Technologies > Desktop Operating Systems

What point were you trying to make?



--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx

Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

I think that was my point about the TPC benchmark is that the benchmark
for -C is using the same application specification and in this case on the
same kit which to me rings a half decent comparison.

But I do agree that people MUST benchmark their own application then use TPC
which is, I agree, a simple marketing excercise, but it does show that
products don't fall apart at such transaction volumes.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommars kog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns97A86E3 709F54Yazorman@ 127.0.0.1...[color=blue]
> Tony Rogerson (tonyrogerson@s qlserverfaq.com ) writes:[color=green]
>> There is no point, I'd rather trust the TPC for independence instead of
>> what you will produce ie. a biased benchmark based on your
>> anti-microsoft stance and lack of technical ability with that platform.
>>
>> Like I say, check out the benchmark on tpc.org.
>>
>> On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
>> Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
>> Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
>> (http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there![/color]
>
> I think I agree with DA here. TPC is good if all you want to do is
> size-comparisons of male organs, but if you want to test for your actual
> application, you should run your own benchmark. And keep in mind that
> that benchmark applies to that application, and necessarily not any other
> application.
>
> As I understood it, DA's benchmark is for the same Oracle application
> on Windows and Linux, which should be a fairly trivial benchmark to run.
> (But it may say more about Oracle's implementation on the two operating
> systems, that it tells about the operating systems themselves.)
>
> Running a benchmark for the same application running SQL Server and
> Oracle is a far more devilish game.
>
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx[/color]

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Erland Sommarskog wrote:[color=blue]
> Tony Rogerson (tonyrogerson@s qlserverfaq.com ) writes:[color=green]
>> There is no point, I'd rather trust the TPC for independence instead of
>> what you will produce ie. a biased benchmark based on your
>> anti-microsoft stance and lack of technical ability with that platform.
>>
>> Like I say, check out the benchmark on tpc.org.
>>
>> On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
>> Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
>> Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
>> (http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there![/color]
>
> I think I agree with DA here. TPC is good if all you want to do is
> size-comparisons of male organs, but if you want to test for your actual
> application, you should run your own benchmark. And keep in mind that
> that benchmark applies to that application, and necessarily not any other
> application.
>
> As I understood it, DA's benchmark is for the same Oracle application
> on Windows and Linux, which should be a fairly trivial benchmark to run.
> (But it may say more about Oracle's implementation on the two operating
> systems, that it tells about the operating systems themselves.)
>
> Running a benchmark for the same application running SQL Server and
> Oracle is a far more devilish game.[/color]

Precisely. Because then you are dealing with SQL*Net vs another
connection mechanism. You are dealing with array processing versus
cursors, and lots of other real-world compromises we all make when
we decide whether to implement best-of-breed functionality or try
to stay generic. I think Tony, in his zeal to defend turf, missed
the point I was trying to make. Next time I will try to be clearer.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)