🚀 go-pugleaf

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>I think the standard reference is still TP1 (Codd & Date?) and it
>bears this ``folklore'' out.

TP1 is a simplified, non-standard version of the DebitCredit
benchmark.  DebitCredit was published: Anon Et. Al, "A Measure of
Transaction Processing Power", DATAMATION, April 1985.  TP1
is neither as useful or comparable as DebitCredit.  Its results
are less meaningful, more sensitive to factors not controlled
or reported.  It's cheaper to run, easier to manipulate to get
higher numbers, and harder to be held to as a standard.  And
DebitCredit itself is not perfect.

But again, it's my belief that you're right, that dead whales generate
more and faster i/o's.  But I have no DATA. TP1 would be better than
nothing, but DebitCredit would be the beginning of real usefulness.
Anyone have any DATA?  If TP1, results are meaningless without
including information about table sizes used and method used to
simulate users (tty vs. network vs. multiple concurrent batch).

>[good points, material deleted]

>Will [other vendors] even take an RFP
>with absolute performance requirements?

A continuing and profitable source of business for dead whales is right
here in defense land.  A popular MO for such deals is to take the RFP,
sign the requirements, deliver the system, verify that it doesn't meet
the requirements, and wait until the customer adjusts the
requirements.  The alternative, remember, is starting over.  The vendor
knows all along that the customer will have his personal reputation
heavily staked on the deal by then.  So it's impressive to state
absolute performance requirements in writing, but it's even more
impressive to meet them.  One hopes it's better when the customer is
Mastercard or J. C. Penny.

-- Jon
-- 
Jonathan Krueger    jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.