HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 3/23/92] TPC Transaction Processing Council   (21/28) c.be FAQ
Keywords: business, online transactions processing, database,
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 12:25:08 GMT
Reply-To: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)

21	TPC						<This panel>
22
23
24
25	Ridiculously short benchmarks
26	Other miscellaneous benchmarks
27
28	References
1	Introduction to FAQ chain and netiquette
2
3	PERFECT
4
5	Performance Metrics
6	Temporary scaffold of New FAQ material
7	Music to benchmark by
8	Benchmark types
9	Linpack
10
11	NIST source and .orgs
12	Benchmark Environments
13	SLALOM
14
15	12 Ways to Fool the Masses with Benchmarks
16	SPEC
17	Benchmark invalidation methods
18
19	WPI Benchmark
20	Equivalence

OLTP (On-Line Transaction Processing): Jim Gray, DEC, was Tandem, was IBM
	Has a new book out on the subject.  Also O. Serlin follows this.

TPC A and TPC B benchmarks are well documented, audited by outside firms,
and the results kept by the Transaction Processing Council.
The TPC administrator is:

   Shanley Public Relations
   177 N. First Street
   Suite 600
   San Jose, CA 95112-6311

TPC/A TPC/B
Location: FTP from DG.COM (128.222.1.2), login anonymous, directory tpc.

Name            Description

Results-text    Results spreadsheet
                (format: tab separated text)
                (size: 15KB)

Results-sylk    Results spreadsheet
                (format: SYLK spreadsheet interchange format)
                (size: 26KB)

TPCARev1.1      TPC Benchmark A Standard Specification Rev 1.1
                (format: Macintosh Microsoft Word)
                (size: 153KB)

TPCARev1.1-PS   TPC Benchmark A Standard Specification Rev 1.1
                (format: Postscript)
                (size: 816KB)

TPCARev1.1-RTF  TPC Benchmark A Standard Specification Rev 1.1
                (format: Rich Text Format - interchange format)
                (size: 243KB)

TPCBRev1.1      TPC Benchmark B Standard Specification Rev 1.1
                (format: Macintosh Microsoft Word)
                (size: 126KB)

TPCBRev1.1-PS   TPC Benchmark B Standard Specification Rev 1.1
                (format: PostScript)
                (size: 993KB)

TPCBRev1.1-RTF  TPC Benchmark B Standard Specification Rev 1.1
                (format: Rich Text Format - interchange format)
                (size: 194KB)

As for the code, the benchmark specs have sample SQL codes, but they may not
help you very much. Every implementation is going to be different. 

After all:
	what is a "transaction?" (but an arbitrary definition.)

                   ^ A  
                s / \ r                
               m /   \ c              
              h /     \ h            
             t /       \ i          
            i /         \ t        
           r /           \ e      
          o /             \ c    
         g /               \ t  
        l /                 \ u
       A /                   \ r
        <_____________________> e   
                Language
 
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: willmore@iastate.edu (David Willmore)
Subject: Re: DEC ALPHA Performance Claims
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:33:10 GMT

rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) writes:
>willmore@iastate.edu (David Willmore) writes:
>>I don't expect that will be much of a problem with the Alpha.From the way the
>>archetecture is designed, it looks like the most optimization and ordering takes
>>place on-chip. The compiler orders things in a fairly general way which the CPU
>>schedules. I wouldn't say that Alpha eliminates all code ordering problems, but
>>it should be less effected than other archetectures.  At least I hope so.

>Are you sure you're talking about the 21064 implementation of Alpha?  I
>believe it's a very vanilla superscalar implementation (kind of an
>oxymoron at this point, huh?).  It doesn't do any of that far-out,
>register-renaming, out-of-order stuff, as far as I know.  Now, I do
>know of another architecture that will do all this stuff, but I don't
>want to be too self-serving here...     8-)

I don't see any place in my post where I even mentioned the 21064.  I
was talking of the Alpha architecture specification.  It doesn't promise
anything that should get in the way of performance like many other
vendors offer.  The SPARC specification, on the other hand, has several
problems which will limit the performance that can be attained without
getting really ugly to implement.  The way I see it, **opinion** only,
is that the Alpha crew reapplied the RISC principals to what had been
learned about RISC in the last, what, decade?  I don't think that DEC is
blowing smoke when they say 25 years.  It would be a long haul, but it
could be done. :)  But, then again, we don't know what the future holds,
certainly not that far into it.

Just a few rambleings.

See everyone later.  I'm off for Thanksgiving for the next week.

--David Willmore
willmore@iastate.edu
Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1696 comp.arch.storage:776
From: olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson)
Subject: Re: Disk performance issues, was IDE vs SCSI-2 using iozone
Organization:  Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 07:26:34 GMT

In <BxyBML.2pq@csn.org> milton@teal.csn.org (Milton Scritsmier) writes:
| In its current drives, HP remaps entire tracks, even for one sector
| errors (each zone has a certain number of spare tracks). This was

That was not a great decision, if true.  I've not chased down
just how HP does their bad block handling, as we haven't done
serious eval of their drive (politics as much as anything else,
even if it is a different division of HP from the workstations).

| a conscious design choice made after studying various methods. Some
| of the reasons they gave were that media errors often overlap sector
| boundaries, and that many disk operations often do not cross track
| boundaries. In addition, head switching times to get to a slipped

Sector slipping means that there *is* no head switch time, by definition
(unless the sector slipped was the last one on the track, which is
relatively rare).

| sector pushed onto another track or to a spare at the end of a cylinder
| often are several milliseconds. This is a significant fraction of a
| seek, especially if you have to switch back to the original track to
| pick up more data vs. seeking to a track where all the data is.

Additionally, almost all SCSI drives offset sector numbers from
track to track to allow for the head switch time.  There is
still the latency issue, but at least you don't miss a rev.

You *never* have to switch back to the original track if you
sector slip.

| No doubt sector slipping gives the best overall performance in general,
| but with today's emphasis on capacity as well as performane, sector
| slipping wastes too much media. In addition, the media has improved
| to the point where a hundred errors on a 1 gig disk is high. 

You obviously don't understand sector wlipping.  It wastes no
media at all.  100 errors on a 1GB disk is not at all uncommon.
--
Let no one tell me that silence gives consent,  |   Dave Olson
because whoever is silent dissents.             |   Silicon Graphics, Inc.
    Maria Isabel Barreno                        |   olson@sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: tin@smsc.sony.com (Le Tin)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Unix disk I/O benchmark programs
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:16:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.162458.7535@mts.mivj.ca.us> rpao@mts.mivj.ca.us (Roger C. Pao) writes:
>
>I am looking for the programs mentioned above for SCO Unix SVR3 Version 4
>and Dell Unix SVR4 Rel 4.  I need to compare a few adapters.
>
>In particular, I would like iobench, and I have heard of AIN III (whatever
>that is--anyone know?).
>
>Any leads are appreciated.
>rp92
>-- 
>Roger C. Pao  {gordius,bagdad,pride386}!mts!rpao, rpao@mts.mivj.ca.us


  You can find a number of I/O benchmarks on sonygate:/bench/unix/io.
The AIM II and III benchmarks are commercial programs.  You will
have to buy them.  AIM II is a subsystem benchmark, AIM III is a
multiuser benchmark.  AIM III is a synthetic benchmark, it
simulates multiuser workloads through a number of small tasks.

  If all you want is to test the performance of a disk controller,
stick with iobench or iozone.  Aim III is more of an overall
system performance benchmark.  The I/O subsytem throughput does
have a big impact on the numbers that Aim III produces, but so
does the efficiency of the OS in creating child processes (the
fork system call).  Aim uses II and III together to create their
APR II (Aim Performance Rating version II).  A few years ago, I
worked for Aim and created the current APR II that they are using
(wrote the versions of Aim II and III being used for APR II).

Regards,
Tin Le
-- 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
. Tin Le                    Work Internet: tin@smsc.Sony.COM
. Sony Microsystems
. Office: (408) 944-4157     Other Internet Addr: tin@szebra.Saigon.COM
From: marrone@ee.fit.edu (Michael Marrone)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Dhrystones: what are they?
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:56:04 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Fl


	Subject says it all.  I'm doing benchmarks for various systems
here, and making a presentation out of them.  Unfortunately, I can't
figure out what the Dhrystone test is.  Can someone tell me what it is, as
I can't figure it out from the code?
My presentation is on Monday the 23rd so if anyone knows, please mail me.

Thanks bunches!

Mike Marrone
Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1694 comp.arch.storage:774
From: doctor@k9.UUCP (Paul Broe)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Who wants faster machines  was  DEC ALPHA Performance Claims
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:46:52 GMT
Organization: Mostly Harmless...
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16g (10.17.92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <BxyrvK.JKx@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> phd85@seq1.keele.ac.uk (D.H. Holden) writes:

[stuff edited out]

> > ality more, it will become too slow.  My old Sun 3/50 seemed quite fast
> > five years ago.  Now, you can't give 'em away.  
> 
> 
>    any one want to give me one? :)

If they have one left, could they contact me next? :-)

(I'd take one for free, no problem.)


-- 
----
Paul Broe
Internet: broe@plains.nodak.edu
UUCP: uunet!plains!prototype!k9!doctor (My Amiga 2500/20)    AmigaUUCP 1.16D
BIX: pbroe Compu$erve: too expensive.                        AmigaOS 2.05
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.arch.storage
From: milton@teal.csn.org (Milton Scritsmier)
Subject: Re: Disk performance issues, was IDE vs SCSI-2 using iozone
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:37:00 GMT

In article <se37imk@zuni.esd.sgi.com> olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson) writes:
>
>Another reason for not doing it on the host at all.  Newer (read, more
>or less high performance) drives tend to have hardware dedicated to the
>block translation to sect/head/cyl, etc.  Granted that the drives often
>have rather underpowered CPU's for all that they are asked to do, they
>usually throw enough hardware at it to overcome the problems.  I'm sure
>this isn't the case for most IDE drives though.

I am familiar with the design of several drives (and have done firmware
for a couple of drives and controllers), and the only special hardware
I know of to do the logical to physical mapping is the CPU. In fact,
while WD's SCSI chip does (or at least did originally) have a divide,
it is so slow that even WD doesn't use it. While some drives have a
DSP chip, the communication path between it and the CPU is usually
so tedious that a divide done on the DSP and sent back to the CPU is
slower than one done by the CPU itself. Most microcontroller chips
used on drives these days can do a 32 x 16 divide in less than
4 us. That's a crawl by computer CPU standards, but certainly
doesn't affect command overhead that much.

I also don't consider most drive CPU's to be underpowered. They are
chosen quite carefully for what they need to do. The problem with
designing drives is that you have long periods of little to do
interspersed with short periods of frantic activity. If the
CPU can't handle the short bursts of activity quick enough, you
find yourself losing revolutions. As you mentioned, most CPUs have
support chips to help them deal with much of this problem. A
well-designed drive architecture thus has plenty of horsepower
to do caching and sector mapping. After all, microcontroller
designs have ridden the same technology curve that computer CPUs
have ridden. If disk drive purchasers required more CPU intensive
features in their drives, then drive manufacturers would be able
to find a microcontroller which provided the needed horsepower
(with the usual mark-up, of course :-).

I also think that many IDE CPUs are just as powerful as the ones on
SCSI drives. I know that WD, for example, uses the same Intel 80196
processor on its IDE drives as it does on its SCSI drives. The reasons
are that most of the real-time interrupt requirements are the same,
and that the volume discounts a drive manufacturer gets for using the
same CPU on all of its drives helps offset the fact that in one
application the CPU may be somewhat overpowered. Besides, 80196's
are *cheap* these days. :-)

Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: imohamme@ho08.eng.ua.edu (Imadulla S. Mohammed)
Subject: Benchmarks fo HP,SUN's and IBM RS/6000
Followup-To: imohamme@ho08.eng.ua.edu
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Distribution: comp.benchmarks
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:58:00 GMT

Hi
   Does anybody on the discussion list know where i can find some Benchmarks forthe Hp series, SUN series and IBM rs/6000 workstations. Please send the information to the above address.  Thanks for the information

yours
imad

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: New Developments on Digital Telephony
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:29:35 GMT

The fact that the FBI doesn't have human staff to listen to phones is not
the key issue.  The world is moving more towards E-mail for much of its
important correspondence, and it *is* possible today to search all the e-mail
in the world if you can get ahold of its plaintext.

Indeed, the fact that this is possible is a reason we're particularl keen
on encrypting our e-mail.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: right to have .plan
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:23:27 GMT
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart) wrote:
:
: Given all this, my current thought is that a .plan should be
: governed more by courtesy and ettiquette than regulation. [...] 
:
: If the problem heated up enough, all parties might have to sit 
: down and agree on an "appropriate cooperative behavior" ethic.
: "I won't post X if you won't post Y, even if we both have the 
: 'right' to do so".

Beautiful!  This is the cooperative spirit we don't see a whole
lot of on any of the nets right now, probably because of the type
of person who is technically minded (generalizing here, of course)
and who is more likely to talk about rights over relationships.
Most newsgroups don't seem like communities to me -- I think it's
a little different over there on FidoNet, more little islands of
people who know each other -- so as a result UseNet has to have
discussion like these about strangers who charge in to make your
life -- and thereby all of ours -- difficult.

Aaron
From: jeff.black@execnet.com (jeff black)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: test message
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:19:35 GMT
Reply-To: "jeff black" <jeff.black@execnet.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Executive Networks Information

This is a test. Please do not reply. I know I am not supposed to test in
this conference but, we had some news come back to us and we wanted to
find out if we could duplicate the problem. Please bear with us. Thanks
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: ah@dunaad.co.uk (Alan Hunter)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: A Silver Bullet to Limit Crypto?
Date: 21 Nov 92 10:25:01 GMT
Organization: Johnson Hunter Limited

In article <1992Nov19.212422.29075@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad
Templeton) writes: 

>Imagine somebody was able to build a safe that was so good that nobody
>could get into it without the combination, not even the police.   Imagine
>there is fear that criminals will keep evidence of their crimes in these
>safes, though the vast majority would be used simply to protect the privacy
>and safety of law-abiding folk.
>
>How would the public react to laws that:
>
>	a) Ban the import, sale or ownership of these safes, or
>
>	b) Require that all safes have a special panel only the police
>	   can open, or
>
>	c) Require that a copy of the combination for any such safe be kept
>	   on file with the police or some central storehouse.

or      d) Require that they not be used for sending person to person
           messages at 186,000 miles per second:-)

Alan


-- 
Alan Hunter
Johnson Hunter Ltd
Isle of Islay, Scotland
A.Hunter@dunaad.co.uk          fax: +44-496-2336         voice: +44-496-2286
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re: On-line Proceedings for
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:29:45 GMT

RE>On-line Proceedings for
"Computers, Freedom and Privacy II"
 > The database contains the ASCII text of the proceedings from "the
 > Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy II," courtesy of the ACM.
 
Carl, is there any chance that those same papers/transcripts could be put
on the ftp server so that those of us out here in the email-only
wastelands could request them?
 
 -------------
 J. Brad Hicks
 Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com
 X.400:    c=US admd=ATTMAIL prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
 
 I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does
 not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.
 
 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7074 misc.int-property:1448 alt.suit.att-bsdi:621 comp.unix.bsd:8918
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Software Patents: Promotion of science and the useful arts?
Date: 14 Nov 92 17:13:40 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <721582032.995@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>One big reason that DES isn't included in every mail system is because many
>companies want to sell outside the U.S.  As soon as that software gets to the
>border, it becomes "munitions", and requires extensive paperwork to ship
>it--if at all.



The really sad part about this is that the theory and practise of DES is
widely published and easily available in any technical library anywhere in
the world.  The only people hurt by the restrictions are US based companies. 
DES s/w is widely available from non-US anonymous ftp sites, one of which is
based in Finland -- one of the few countries with very good communications
with both the old USSR and the west.  Email system written and sold in the
UK often have DES options available.  

-- 
Geoff. Lane. | Internet: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk | Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin,  Manchester Computing Centre,  Oxford Rd,  Manchester, M13 9PL
During a week's TV I want to be entertained, bored, delighted, disgusted, made
happy, saddened, enlightened, mystified, else they aren't doing the job right.
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Query: Can Universities limit network access &/or 'spy` on u
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:04:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxxBJq.BpH
Distribution: na
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows) writes:
}On a similar topic, I think that my university is the most anal-
}retentive regarding its computers of any university on the planet.
}I go to Southwest Missouri State University, in Springfield, and I have
}heard rumors that students will no longer be able to get Internet access...

}Is there anything I can do about this?

transfer?

(That's not as flip as it sounds) When students start asking the admissions
office questions like:

   Do you have `T1' or better access to Internet?
   Do all students get Internet access?  Under what limits?
   Do all students get usernames?  On what kind of systems?  Limits?

then the university will start realizing the importance of such facilities
-- hopefully the day will come when these questions stop getting asked, I
mean nobody asks:

   Do you have running water?  Electricity?  Indoor plumbing?

anymore (at least in up here in Iowa ;-)

John
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: right to have .plan
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:50:29 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu's message of 17 Nov 92 19:43:33 -0400

In article <BxvwKM.1KE@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
writes:
>[...]
>>Ironically enough, were the original poster at a public institution,
>>his .plan file could be construed as a violation of the "separation"
>>of church and state.  Absurd, yes, but the only interpretation
>>consistent with Supreme Court policy on the subject.
>[...]
>
>I don't think this is true at state universities. Generally, students
>and faculty at that level have freedom of expression when they are
>speaking for themselves.

On reflection, I believe you are right.  I still believe that many,
if not most, S.C. decisions on the "separation" issue are absurd (and
I am a card-carrying atheist, so I have no intrinsic anti-separation
bias on this subject, I'm simply capable of reading the Constitution).
However, it is far from clear that such decisions would preclude
something which is clearly personal expression on a machine at that
level.

That said, how long do you think a "personal" expression of some
really vile racist statement would last in such a forum?  (Both as an
abstract legal issue and as a practical matter.)  None of the (rather
impressive) "annotated references" you provided seem to indicate that
a university computer's managers are merely providing a "common
carrier" for expression.  I can see where they might still have an
interest in suppressing certain categories of speech.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc