In Oracle® Database 11g Running on Oracle’s SPARC Enterprise M9000 Server Sets World Record TPC-H Three Terabyte Non-Clustered Benchmark Result, Oracle's tradition of making claims, hoping the reader will not examine the details, continues.
In last week's disclosure, Oracle claimed:
Running on a SPARC Enterprise M9000 server, equipped with 64 SPARC64 VII+ 3.0 GHz processors, and Sun Storage 6180 arrays, Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Solaris achieved a world record TPC-H 3 TB non-clustered performance result of 386,478 QphH@3000GB with a price of $19.25/QphH@3000GB.
Oracle is NOT the category winner in either QphH or USD/QphH, the only two benchmark metrics. In fact, tcp.org has it ranked number 2, clustered or not. Perhaps what Oracle referred to as a record is the system cost record for this category, which it does win at $7,436,402.
This result demonstrates that Oracle Database 11g Release 2 running on the SPARC Enterprise M9000 server was 2.4 times faster than the IBM Power 595 system(3) and loaded the entire database 3.3 times faster than the above system while maintaining the highest level of data protection at a lower cost per transaction(3).
- The Oracle result used 256 cores to achieve their latest result
- IBM used 64 cores and it was run on a POWER6, IBM's prior generation processor.
Oracle requires 4X the number Fujitsu cores than did IBM POWER6 cores for a 2.4X performance differential. Since TPC-H is a business analytics benchmark, and business analytic applications have per core licensing, even taking into consideration the M9000 “performance” advantage, Oracle's M9000 SW cost would be 1.67 times that of IBM's prior generation p595 server (normalizing per core performance).
Oracle also claimed
it loaded it's database 3.3 times faster than IBM. However, the
details show Oracle's Total
Storage / Database Size is 102.6, whereas IBM's
Total Storage / Database Size is 6.58. This means:
- To store 3TB of data; Oracle used 308TB (102.6TB of storage/data set size),
- For the same 3TB of data; IBM only needed 20TB (6.58TB of storage/data set size)
Oracle had massive storage, almost 16 times that of IBM per dbase size. While this totally legal and legitimate, storage has its costs. The end result is that the price/performance metric for this benchmark, USD per QphH@3000GB for Oracle and IBM is:
- Oracle M9000: 19.25
- IBM p575: 20.60
Oracle's latest TPC-H result is 1.07X
better than IBM's prior generation result. Not much to brag about,
considering the Oracle's system costs $7.4M and IBM's is $3.2M. One
might conclude Oracle simply kept adding cores and storage until it
just passed IBM's result. In any case, Oracle provides 1.07x better performance for 2.3x the price.
The benchmark underscores the ability of SPARC Enterprise M-series servers to deliver near-linear scalability and handle the increasingly large databases required of decision support and data warehousing systems. Neither IBM nor HP matched this level of performance in the 3TB scale factor category using a single system, further highlighting the performance capabilities of multi-processor SPARC systems in the most demanding enterprise application environments.
As noted above, in this 3TB category, Oracle is not even the best performer. Fujitsu's own RX300 X4, a 640-core Xeon server wins.
In the 10TB category, IBM beats Oracle.
Only HP bothered to report results for the 30TB category, and it did that in 2007.