On 05/10/2010 12:34 PM, Bill Arnold wrote: > Hi Leland, > > For perspective on high end database performance, compare both to TPF > (25,000 transactions per second) > http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/37518.html?wlc=1273511918 > > " ... but what is most significant is the system's compatibility with Linux. > This feature opens the door for many more programmers and administrators who > may want to work with it." > > I've written applications for TPF (Avis rent-a-car) years ago. Kinda/sorta > like VFP, it reads records into "work areas" (levels). Records are chained > (linked) to enable reading back and forth through sets. At the time it was > assembler only, but that may have changed with z/TPF. > > > Bill > > >
O/K, I finally had a chance to look into this a little more. TPF is not a database, its an OS. If z/TPF is an OS and Linux is an OS, I still don't understand how z/TPF runs under Linux, unless as a VM. LOL. Anyways, it's designed to #---------------------------- Excerpt: TPF delivers fast, high-volume, high-throughput transaction processing, handling large, continuous loads of essentially simple transactions across large, geographically dispersed networks. The world's largest TPF-based systems are easily capable of processing tens of thousands of transactions per second. TPF is also designed for highly reliable, continuous (24x7) operation. It is not uncommon for TPF customers to have continuous online availability of a decade or more, even with system and software upgrades. This is due in part to the multi-mainframe operating capability and environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_Processing_Facility http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/tpfhelp/current/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.ztpf-ztpfdf.doc_put.cur/gtpc3/ch1.html #------------------------- Regards, LelandJ > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leland Jackson >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:31 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [NF] Postgres vs. SQL Server >> >> >> Results of test performed between MSSQL and PostgreSQL: >> >> #------------------------------- >> Excerpt: >> >> 5 Conclusions >> This paper compares the performance and scaling of the BenchmarkSQL >> workload running >> on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.4 with that of the same workload on >> Windows Server 2008 R2 >> Enterprise. The database servers used were HP ProLiant DL370 >> G6 servers >> equipped with >> 48 GB of RAM and comprised of dual sockets, each with a 3.2 GHz Intel >> Xeon W5580 >> Nehalem processor (totaling 8 cores). >> The data presented in this paper establishes that a common >> OLTP workload >> on PostgreSQL >> can contend with SQL Server and with minimal tuning, is capable of >> outperforming SQL >> Server using the same load in an enterprise environment. >> The number of actual users and throughput supported in any specific >> customer situation >> would naturally depend on the specifics of the application >> used and the >> degree of user >> activity. >> >> http://pgsnake.blogspot.com/2010/05/postgres-vs-sql-server.html >> >> #---------------------------------- >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
