Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A short note that the total cost of that SPARC cluster was $30 million. You're not misreading those numbers, but it requires a little context.

We're focusing today on our improvements over CockroachDB 1.1, using a small-ish cluster. We'll be showing some more scalability with larger clusters in the coming weeks. If you've found CockroachDB performance slow in the past, you will be pleasantly surprised with this release!

Sure thing. I was primarily answering the question above - in terms of how the numbers in the TPC-C benchmark fit in. I updated my comment to reflect the cost.

I think what's interesting with TPC-C is that you can sort the results based on performance or price/performance. On the price/performance metric, SPARC looks expensive. Dell has a $20K SQL Anywhere cluster that can do 113K tx/min.

I wonder if anyone tried to run these benchmarks on the cloud and how one would calculate total cost of ownership there now.

you do realize it's ancient hardware thats $300-400 USD on ebay now.


Yeah, but 1700 cores worth. That's still a lot of $300 boxes. Like qty 53 Sparc T3-2's for example. Which seem to be $1200 to $2k on eBay. And unsupported, end of life, etc.

I'd compare CockroachDB's number to some more recent result with a similar number of cores. (If you can find one)

Minor correction: They used 54 SPARC T3-2. You can see exactly which components they used in http://c970058.r58.cf2.rackcdn.com/fdr/tpcc/Oracle_SPARC_Sup...

Not feeling too bad about my back of the napkin guess being off by one server at 53 vs 54. :)

I meant dell boxes Sparc based boxes retain some value

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact