Currently Being Moderated

Setting the Record Straight

Posted by Phil Francisco on Dec 16, 2008 6:49:21 PM

 

We came across a series of blog posts the other day which seemed to insinuate that Netezza and other competitors might be trying to shape our 10-100X performance message on the backs of comparisons to antiquated, end-of-service life systems and not comparing to current competitors' platforms . When we got to this one - "Database Customer Benchmarketing Reports" - I felt we just had to correct the record, so I wrote a response to Greg Rahn's posting to give Netezza's side of the story, namely that

 

  • we are as up-front as possible with prospective customers and use the customer benchmark testing/POC process to prove out Netezza's performance, value and simplicity value propositions;

  • the results of other products' performance come from our prospects/customers and not the result of Netezza running the tests on those platforms;

  • not only do we test against the incumbent systems, but there is almost always at least one other current competitive system that is included in the POC process;

  • the PowerPoint deck on which Greg was doing his analysis contained some rather ancient (in enzee-years, anyway) comparisons with versions of the NPS appliance that we have not sold in as much as 4.5 years & was really not much of a data set on which to base his analysis; and

  • the "proof of the pudding is in the tasting" - Netezza's success rate of converting prospects to customers through the customer benchmarking process remains very strong.

 

In short - we make every effort to keep the Netezza website contents both accurate and clear and we definitely feel confident in standing by our 10-100X performance claims. It would be great to have more than the Netezza "product marketing guy" clarify things - while I know some of the excellent results recent customers have seen in POC, no one knows them better than our customers & SI partners themselves.

 

 



Dec 17, 2008 4:03 PM mboyd mboyd    says:

After reading this article and then the article from Greg, I felt compelled to add a comment to his blog.  I believe that we could have gotten our "old" Oracle database to perform as well as our Netezza NPS 10100 now does (an average of 54x better than the "old" system) by upgrading our existing server to something MUCH bigger and tuning our Oracle database better.  That, however, would have cost us at least 5x the money that the NPS did and that just didn't make sense to us.  Thanks for pointing out Greg's article us - I think his article has some very valid points, but as a satisfied Netezza customer I felt compelled to provide insight into our rationale for moving from Oracle to Netezza.  Thanks again.

Dec 17, 2008 4:16 PM Jessica Jessica    says:

Speaking of things to question....For someone who claims to have done "investigative research" on Netezza, I would imagine a good, first place to go might have been Netezza.com.  However, it's clear that didn't happen.  Then Greg would have quickly seen our slogan is not "The Power to Question Everything," as he claims.

Dec 18, 2008 5:10 AM Chris Rodgers Chris Rodgers    says in response to Jessica:

Actually, "The Power to Question Everything"(TM) IS a slogan from Netezza.  It is still on the splash screen of the NPS Admin Gui (4.5.2p4) and it is on literature from slide presentations to educational documentation.  It looks like it was recently shortened to "Question Everything"(TM).

Dec 17, 2008 5:38 PM Chris Rodgers Chris Rodgers    says:

I see the point that the blogger is making, but he is not looking at it from a customer's perspective.  I think most corporations look at it from the business case to upgrade.  It is based on current in-house conditions (can't make batch load windows anymore, monthly sales analysis takes too long, customers are waiting for answers that should be quicker based on perception, etc).  So, businesses will shop around for what fits their needs and the comparisons are against what they currently have.  I think that is fair in the sense that it tells you what your new capability will be with the new hardware/software/whatever (lessened batch window by x hours, reports in x fewer days, etc).  If Oracle doesn't want to benchmark and claim stats on systems they have replaced, then that is their (marketing) loss.

 

A much bigger point not mentioned by the blogger, but brought up in a response and here is cost.  That is where you can show a whole other side to the comparisons.  Go ahead and think of the challenge... get two systems that are a "fair comparison" on a hardware level.  Can that be done?  NZ has 1:1 cpu to disk store.  Is that comparable to HP/O DM?  Some could argue not, since there is not the same ratio in DM.  But, let's get over that (otherwise there will never be a fair comparison). 

 

If you could build out a comparable machine/system that could perform the same throughput as the NZ server, see how they perform.  Spewing data is only a part of the process.  Intelligently selecting the relevant data to deliver is a bigger part.  Tools to help that part of the process can be costly on some systems (indexes, preaggregated tables, etc) - costly in both size/footprint and maintenance. 

 

So, let's say we can build a comparable system that can hold the same amount of user data (let's say a 5 TB fact table - not too small, yet not the biggest out there), and perform queries at about the same rate, and deliver data at about the same rate.  It would be everyone's "latest and greatest".  IF you can get these great comparable systems together, what would the comparison be like in terms of

 

    1) footprint (racks),

    2) logistical cost (electric and cooling),

    3) operational cost (number of experienced DBAs, time/bandwidth/cycles spend keeping the data in order, etc), and, oh yes

    4) purchase cost (both initial and annual maintenance)? 

 

Where would various vendors stand on these points?  Would that be a fair comparison?  Would it take IBM 8 times the footprint and 5-10 times the annual cost to perform the same as a comparable NPS?  Would it take Oracle 4 times the footprint and 5 times the annual cost to produce the same performance as an NPS?

 

Food for thought...

Dec 17, 2008 6:15 PM Karina Bernier Karina Bernier    says in response to Chris Rodgers:

Crodgers - great comment! I would encourage you to comment on Greg's blog too, like Mark did. Your points are very valid and they should be heard!