If the 3000 is significantly more cost effective (transactions / $) than others
per TPC, I would think that would be a great selling point and reason enough to
do the benchmarks.  Perhaps that is not the case, and that is why the
benchmarks are not being done.

Don't misunderstand me.  I suspect that MPE and TurboImage get more out of
their hardware than other software.  But they may not be priced to give a cost
advantage.  As evidence, there is the recent price increase in user licenses.

Jim





> Date:          Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:41:41 -0400
> Reply-to:      [log in to unmask]
> From:          [log in to unmask]
> Subject:       Re: TPC benchmarks, anyone?
> To:            [log in to unmask]

>      Patrick wrote:
>
>      >I've been to the Transaction Processing Performance Council's web
>      >site, <http://www.tpc.org> but have been unable to find any TPC
>      >benchmarks for MPE systems (there are several listed for HP-UX). I
>      >seem to remember that HP had done some benchmarks at one time, but
>      >they were probably TPC-A or -B (? - need to upgrade my memory, I
>      >guess :-). Does anyone know if HP has done TPC-C or TPC-D
>      >benchmarking on MPE and whether the results were published? (And, if
>      >not, why not?)
>
>      To the best of my knowledge, it has been some time since CSY did any
>      TPC benchmarks.  First, it is very expensive(time and dollars) to do a
>      benchmark, especially one like TPC since there are many rules to
>      follow and it must be independently audited.  That expense must be
>      weighed against the benefit of doing the benchmark and, in my opinion,
>      there are not enough benefits to justify the cost.  Why do I say that?
>      I do not like to pigeonhole or stereotype people or companies but, in
>      the world of HP3000 sales, we are not usually dealing with people who
>      are comparing the performance of the HP3000 against another platform.
>      And isn't that the primary purpose of an "industry standard"
>      benchmark?  We are usually (1)dealing with customers who already have
>      an HP3000 and are looking to add or upgrade.  In that case, since they
>      are familiar with how their application runs on their HP3000, a
>      comparison of their HP3000 to other HP3000s provides them with a
>      better gauge than an "industry standard" benchmark which is running
>      code and doing things that they are probably not.  Or, (2) we are
>      dealing with a customer who does not have an HP3000, but is looking at
>      the HP3000 because that's where the application runs.  That is, the
>      application is driving the decision to purchase the HP3000.  When the
>      applications(those that are causing customers today to buy HP3000s)
>      become readily available on other platforms, then there may be a need
>      to have something like TPC benchmarks in order to compete.  In my
>      current experience, the applications that are bringing new customers
>      to the HP3000 only run on the HP3000.  If I am wrong on that, please
>      do not hesitate to let me know.
>
>      If a customer has not picked an application, and is considering
>      whether or not to look for one that runs on the HP3000, I will try to
>      provide him with reliability, high availability, and supportability
>      information to encourage a look at HP3000 applications.  Again,
>      performance comparisons do not generally come into play at that point.
>
>      So, that's my opinion.  I will be happy to hear any points on why CSY
>      should go back to doing TPC (or any other industry standard)
>      benchmarks.  If there are enough benefits to it, then maybe they'll
>      start again.
>
>      Jon Broz
>      HP Cleveland
>
>      "Definitely my opinions... not necessarily HP's"
>

Jim Kramer /Lund Performance Solutions
Director of Research and Development
phone: (541) 926-3800  fax:   (541) 926-7723
email: [log in to unmask]    home:  [log in to unmask]
http://www.lund.com