Comments on: Netezza’s chip story http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/ Choices in data management and analysis Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:43:40 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Xtreme Data readies a different kind of FPGA-based data warehouse appliance | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-127987 Xtreme Data readies a different kind of FPGA-based data warehouse appliance | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:09:39 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-127987 [...] for core SQL processing, after the data is ingested via conventional I/O. This is different from Netezza’s approach to FPGA-based data warehouse appliances, in which the FPGA sits in the place of a disk controller [...] [...] for core SQL processing, after the data is ingested via conventional I/O. This is different from Netezza’s approach to FPGA-based data warehouse appliances, in which the FPGA sits in the place of a disk controller [...]

]]> By: Infology.Ru » Blog Archive » Стратегии аппаратного обеспечения комплексов для хранилищ данных http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-95064 Infology.Ru » Blog Archive » Стратегии аппаратного обеспечения комплексов для хранилищ данных Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:14:43 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-95064 [...] Netezza всю дорогу является Типом 0. Продукт, если даже не компания, построен вокруг их FPGA. [...] [...] Netezza всю дорогу является Типом 0. Продукт, если даже не компания, построен вокруг их FPGA. [...]

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-54711 Curt Monash Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:11:08 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-54711 Hiya. Lots of clues elsewhere in this blog. Index-light MPP architectures such as Netezza's or DATAllegro's are waaaay better for large data warehouses than traditional index-heavy SMP systems like Oracle or Microsoft SQL*Server. More debatable is the choice between FPGAs (Netezza) and more conventional chips (pretty much everybody else). Both choices have a lot of merit. CAM Hiya.

Lots of clues elsewhere in this blog. Index-light MPP architectures such as Netezza’s or DATAllegro’s are waaaay better for large data warehouses than traditional index-heavy SMP systems like Oracle or Microsoft SQL*Server.

More debatable is the choice between FPGAs (Netezza) and more conventional chips (pretty much everybody else). Both choices have a lot of merit.

CAM

]]> By: diskpharma http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-54650 diskpharma Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:41:17 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-54650 At one of Netezza's User Conference technical breakout sessions this week they basically opened the kimona. They discussed in great detail with animated slides the technology utilized starting from the user query to the front end software optimization and scheduling, how the query is distributed & executed on the SPUs, how data is manipulated, and ultimately sent back to the host and to the user for the answer to their query. Also several of their customers gave presentations at their business track sessions disclosing their DW deployment and reported performance gains of 2 and 3 orders of magnitude. So something is missing in the technical analysis just comparing disk data rates which on average cannot go faster than 70 MB/s. Any clues?? At one of Netezza’s User Conference technical breakout sessions this week they basically opened the kimona.
They discussed in great detail with animated slides the technology utilized starting from the user query to
the front end software optimization and scheduling, how the query is distributed & executed on the SPUs, how
data is manipulated, and ultimately sent back to the host and to the user for the answer to their query.

Also several of their customers gave presentations at their business track sessions disclosing their DW
deployment and reported performance gains of 2 and 3 orders of magnitude. So something is missing in the
technical analysis just comparing disk data rates which on average cannot go faster than 70 MB/s. Any clues??

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-45278 Curt Monash Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:26:51 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-45278 Up until the second half of last year, I used to complain that Netezza would talk to me about its customers but not its technology, and DATAllegro would talk about its technology but not its customers. They still both have those orientations, but neither is nearly as extreme any more as they were. CAM Up until the second half of last year, I used to complain that Netezza would talk to me about its customers but not its technology, and DATAllegro would talk about its technology but not its customers.

They still both have those orientations, but neither is nearly as extreme any more as they were.

CAM

]]> By: Intrigued http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-45277 Intrigued Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:21:21 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-45277 I've seen many articles like this where Stuart tries to position Datallegro over Netezza, the problem is Datallegro has hardly any customers on board, at least hardly any willing to talk about their success publicly, compare that to the momentum Netezza has in the marketplace, that speaks volumes to me ! I’ve seen many articles like this where Stuart tries to position Datallegro over Netezza, the problem is Datallegro has hardly any customers on board, at least hardly any willing to talk about their success publicly, compare that to the momentum Netezza has in the marketplace, that speaks volumes to me !

]]> By: DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services»Blog Archive » Data warehouse appliance hardware strategies http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-16582 DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services»Blog Archive » Data warehouse appliance hardware strategies Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:38:58 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-16582 [...] Netezza is Type 0 all the way. The product, if not the company, is built around its FPGA. [...] [...] Netezza is Type 0 all the way. The product, if not the company, is built around its FPGA. [...]

]]> By: DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services»Blog Archive » Data integration appliance vendor Cast Iron Systems http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-15063 DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services»Blog Archive » Data integration appliance vendor Cast Iron Systems Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:51:54 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-15063 [...] As for the hardware/platform side, it’s similar to what I’m hearing from other appliance vendors (Netezza and their emphasis on an FPGA are a real outlier). Namely: [...] [...] As for the hardware/platform side, it’s similar to what I’m hearing from other appliance vendors (Netezza and their emphasis on an FPGA are a real outlier). Namely: [...]

]]> By: DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services»Blog Archive » Philip Howard on Netezza http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-9521 DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services»Blog Archive » Philip Howard on Netezza Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:37:35 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-9521 [...] Philip Howard has published a write-up based on Netezza’s user conference, entertainly mixing fantasy and reality in his usual manner. Notably, he confuses Netezza’s zone maps, which are basically a very limited form of range partitioning, with something that can substitute for real indices. And the mind boggles at his implication that Netezza has neglected the FPGA in its overall market messaging. More understandable is his regurgitation of Netezza’s claims about heat and power, but although I must confess to not having checked either side’s arithmetic, I find Stuart Frost’s rebuttal in the comments to this thread pretty interesting. [...] [...] Philip Howard has published a write-up based on Netezza’s user conference, entertainly mixing fantasy and reality in his usual manner. Notably, he confuses Netezza’s zone maps, which are basically a very limited form of range partitioning, with something that can substitute for real indices. And the mind boggles at his implication that Netezza has neglected the FPGA in its overall market messaging. More understandable is his regurgitation of Netezza’s claims about heat and power, but although I must confess to not having checked either side’s arithmetic, I find Stuart Frost’s rebuttal in the comments to this thread pretty interesting. [...]

]]> By: Stuart Frost http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/comment-page-1/#comment-9377 Stuart Frost Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:34:05 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/netezza%e2%80%99s-chip-story/#comment-9377 Curt, Just read another article that put Netezza's power consumption at around 30W per SPU. Since each SPU has one disk, that equates to 30W per disk. Our nodes use around 420W each and have 12 disks, so that's 35W per disk. Our P Series gets slightly more usable space per disk than Netezza, so the consumption per TB is about the same. If we compare to our C series, we get around four times the capacity per disk, so power consumption per TB is much lower. Stuart DATAllegro Curt,

Just read another article that put Netezza’s power consumption at around 30W per SPU. Since each SPU has one disk, that equates to 30W per disk.

Our nodes use around 420W each and have 12 disks, so that’s 35W per disk. Our P Series gets slightly more usable space per disk than Netezza, so the consumption per TB is about the same.

If we compare to our C series, we get around four times the capacity per disk, so power consumption per TB is much lower.

Stuart
DATAllegro

]]>