Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 19:08:49 12/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2000 at 19:52:35, Gregor Overney wrote: > [ some text deleted] >NT Fibers are a cheap excuse. They are a higher level construct >without any acceptable performance. Please look at TPC-C results, e.g. at http://www.tpc.org/new_result/tpcc_perf_results.asp. Database with *absolute* best tpc-C is MS SQL Server running on a cluster of NTs. SQL Server uses those horrible non-efficient fibers. Best Unix database (supposely using more efficient Unix pthreads) is #5 in absolute performance running on AIX. Best Sun result is #10. You can look also at the 100Gb and 300Gb TPC-H results. Windows with SQL Server looks reasonable enough in absolute performance, and 3 times better than nearest competitor when you start to look at price/performance. Sun did not submitted results for the Solaris (why?), so we cannot compare. > [ some text deleted] >With regard to 64-bit file pointers, when was it the last >time you used a 256GB file on NT? 1.5 years ago, before I moved to the non-database group. And I *never* used large file on *any* Unix system. Also, you said "it's impossible on NT". Now it happened that it's still possible, right? > NT is for small systems (a la PC) and not for high performance >systems. Wrong again? I don't think so. See TPC-C, -H, -W results above. Next time when you'll decide to send something, please check the facts carefully. Out of 5 claims in the original post, I know nothing about 2, but you definitely was wrong in 2 out of 3 remaining (# of supported CPUs and 64-bit files), and when talking about the last one it looks that you don't like NT fibers implementation just because they were implemented in non-Unix way, even if they efficiently support all the necessary functionality. Eugene >Gregor
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.