Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

jConnect whitepaper's claims for comparative JDBC performance

3 posts in JDBC Connect (product renamed to JConnect) Last posting was on 1997-05-28 14:21:26.0Z
Ben Cotton Posted on 1997-05-24 23:03:35.0Z
Message-ID: <338773C6.61DDDF52@BEAR.COM>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 18:03:35 -0500
From: Ben Cotton <bcotton@BEAR.COM>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b4 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: davec@sybase.com, jziner@bear.com, akogon@ix.netcom.com, bcotton@bear.com
Subject: jConnect whitepaper's claims for comparative JDBC performance
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------00B5507F7BE564224EFFA2F6"
Newsgroups: sybase.public.jdbcconnect
Lines: 204
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.powersoft.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.jdbcconnect:779
Article PK: 252533

Hi David et. al.,

On the sybase website you guys  provide the following graphic in your jConnect whitepaper.


the whitepaper's explanation of the conditions under which these benchmarks were rendered was  woefully incomplete.  Would you guys be willing to identify the jConnect competitive product that produced these results? Also could you enumerate the *exact* platform(s) layouts (ie where/on what was the Web server, SQL server, middle-tier server, etc. running?)  Was it simply a two-tier JDBC performance competiton?   When Jaguar becomes integrated as jConnect's middle-tier solution are you guys planning on running detailed performance benchmarks against other competitive, true, 3-tier JDBC solution providers (ie WebLogic and its T3 product suite?)   With true three-tier solutions, notions of JDBC connection pools, persistent client workspaces, middle-tier caching configurations, etc, take on significant importance when comparing and contrasting performance metrics.  There are also numerous platform, process, and network performance/load parameters that also must be enumerated in the presentation of results.  Hopefully you guys will publish an additional whitepaper that undertakes this burden and delivers a truly informative comparative analysis, possibly even distinguishing  jConnect/Jaguar as the clear solution choice.

-Ben


unknown-name

David Clegg Posted on 1997-05-27 19:01:08.0Z
Message-ID: <338B2F74.5D768DB0@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 12:01:08 -0700
From: David Clegg <davec@sybase.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Cotton <bcotton@BEAR.COM>
CC: jonikas, davec
Subject: Re: jConnect whitepaper's claims for comparative JDBC performance
References: <338773C6.61DDDF52@BEAR.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.jdbcconnect
Lines: 96
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.powersoft.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.jdbcconnect:765
Article PK: 252516

Mark, please forward details on the performance comparison in the
jConnect whitepaper. I believe that the table was taken from your
work. The table in question is in the whitepaper at:

http://www.sybase.com/products/internet/jconnect/jdbcwpaper.html
specifically the table in:
http://www.sybase.com/products/internet/jconnect/images/performance.gif


Ben,
I suspect that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to do much in the way of apples-
apples performance comparisons with Jaguar and other 3-tier solutions
since Jaguar is much more than a JDBC gateway -- in fact, Jaguar really
isn't a JDBC gateway at all yet - that work is scheduled for later this
summer.

It strikes me that
one could construct some scenario where we could do comparisons
among some of the 3-tier products in the intersection of their
capabilities, and that our competitive analysis/marketting folks
might be involved there. This would require a better knowledge
of what you can do with the T3 products than I have. The real issue
however is that the JDBC interace is an implicitly slanted towards
a 2-tier architecture -- and what Jaguar provides is a way to break
away from 2-tier application design into a true 3-tier pattern.
A JDBC-Gateway ala what I know of T3 just tries to optimize the
2-tier design pattern via caches and pooling in the middle tier,
without addressing the fundamental shortfallings of that design
paradigm (There I went ahead and used the "P"-word ;-).

One of the key observations here is that in a situation where you
have hundreds or thousands of users running applications simultaneously
against a SQL database, the same conditions which cause you to
want to use a middle-tier to buffer the request load should cause
you concern over whether it is appropriate to have SQL directly
contained in the applications that are running in all those
applications. Having said this, I recognize that the world is not
suddenly going to embrace the remote-objects-in-the-middle-tier
design, and that there will be a transitional period during which
2-tier design implemented in 3-tiers for load-balancing purposes
will be somewhat important.

I know that Jason Hunter was doing alot of work with 3-tier JDBC,
don't know whether he has any ideas on how to construct this sort
of competitive tests. Are you still out there Jason?

dave

>
> Hi David et. al.,
>
> On the sybase website you guys provide the following graphic in your
> jConnect whitepaper.
>
> [Image]
>
> the whitepaper's explanation of the conditions under which these
> benchmarks were rendered was woefully incomplete. Would you guys be
> willing to identify the jConnect competitive product that produced these
> results? Also could you enumerate the *exact* platform(s) layouts (ie
> where/on what was the Web server, SQL server, middle-tier server, etc.
> running?) Was it simply a two-tier JDBC performance competiton? When
> Jaguar becomes integrated as jConnect's middle-tier solution are you
> guys planning on running detailed performance benchmarks against other
> competitive, true, 3-tier JDBC solution providers (ie WebLogic and its
> T3 product suite?) With true three-tier solutions, notions of JDBC
> connection pools, persistent client workspaces, middle-tier caching
> configurations, etc, take on significant importance when comparing and
> contrasting performance metrics. There are also numerous platform,
> process, and network performance/load parameters that also must be
> enumerated in the presentation of results. Hopefully you guys will
> publish an additional whitepaper that undertakes this burden and
> delivers a truly informative comparative analysis, possibly even
> distinguishing jConnect/Jaguar as the clear solution choice.
>
> -Ben


Ben Cotton Posted on 1997-05-28 14:21:26.0Z
Message-ID: <338C3F66.2230@bear.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:21:26 -0400
From: Ben Cotton <bcotton@bear.com>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. [Global Technology]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Clegg <davec@sybase.com>
CC: akogon@ix.netcom.com, jziner@bear.com
Subject: Re: jConnect whitepaper's claims for comparative JDBC performance
References: <338773C6.61DDDF52@BEAR.COM> <338B2F74.5D768DB0@sybase.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.jdbcconnect
Lines: 108
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.powersoft.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.jdbcconnect:758
Article PK: 252510

Thanks very much Dave and Mark, I am in receipt of the performance
comparison details. I was very glas to hear that these numbers were
rendered from a WebLogic v. Sybase JDBC showdown. I'll be back here
soon with my comments. Thanks again!

-Ben

David Clegg wrote:
>
> Mark, please forward details on the performance comparison in the
> jConnect whitepaper. I believe that the table was taken from your
> work. The table in question is in the whitepaper at:
>
> http://www.sybase.com/products/internet/jconnect/jdbcwpaper.html
> specifically the table in:
> http://www.sybase.com/products/internet/jconnect/images/performance.gif
>
> Ben,
> I suspect that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to do much in the way of apples-
> apples performance comparisons with Jaguar and other 3-tier solutions
> since Jaguar is much more than a JDBC gateway -- in fact, Jaguar really
> isn't a JDBC gateway at all yet - that work is scheduled for later this
> summer.
>
> It strikes me that
> one could construct some scenario where we could do comparisons
> among some of the 3-tier products in the intersection of their
> capabilities, and that our competitive analysis/marketting folks
> might be involved there. This would require a better knowledge
> of what you can do with the T3 products than I have. The real issue
> however is that the JDBC interace is an implicitly slanted towards
> a 2-tier architecture -- and what Jaguar provides is a way to break
> away from 2-tier application design into a true 3-tier pattern.
> A JDBC-Gateway ala what I know of T3 just tries to optimize the
> 2-tier design pattern via caches and pooling in the middle tier,
> without addressing the fundamental shortfallings of that design
> paradigm (There I went ahead and used the "P"-word ;-).

Always forgivible w/ me, Dave! :-)

-Ben

>
> One of the key observations here is that in a situation where you
> have hundreds or thousands of users running applications simultaneously
> against a SQL database, the same conditions which cause you to
> want to use a middle-tier to buffer the request load should cause
> you concern over whether it is appropriate to have SQL directly
> contained in the applications that are running in all those
> applications. Having said this, I recognize that the world is not
> suddenly going to embrace the remote-objects-in-the-middle-tier
> design, and that there will be a transitional period during which
> 2-tier design implemented in 3-tiers for load-balancing purposes
> will be somewhat important.
>
> I know that Jason Hunter was doing alot of work with 3-tier JDBC,
> don't know whether he has any ideas on how to construct this sort
> of competitive tests. Are you still out there Jason?
>
> dave
> >
> > Hi David et. al.,
> >
> > On the sybase website you guys provide the following graphic in your
> > jConnect whitepaper.
> >
> > [Image]
> >
> > the whitepaper's explanation of the conditions under which these
> > benchmarks were rendered was woefully incomplete. Would you guys be
> > willing to identify the jConnect competitive product that produced these
> > results? Also could you enumerate the *exact* platform(s) layouts (ie
> > where/on what was the Web server, SQL server, middle-tier server, etc.
> > running?) Was it simply a two-tier JDBC performance competiton? When
> > Jaguar becomes integrated as jConnect's middle-tier solution are you
> > guys planning on running detailed performance benchmarks against other
> > competitive, true, 3-tier JDBC solution providers (ie WebLogic and its
> > T3 product suite?) With true three-tier solutions, notions of JDBC
> > connection pools, persistent client workspaces, middle-tier caching
> > configurations, etc, take on significant importance when comparing and
> > contrasting performance metrics. There are also numerous platform,
> > process, and network performance/load parameters that also must be
> > enumerated in the presentation of results. Hopefully you guys will
> > publish an additional whitepaper that undertakes this burden and
> > delivers a truly informative comparative analysis, possibly even
> > distinguishing jConnect/Jaguar as the clear solution choice.
> >
> > -Ben

--
-Ben