A loyal customer alerted us toan Oracle blog by Jean-Pierre Dijcks earlier today that showed the Oracle FUD machine is fully revved-up and ready to go. I'd like to offer a rebuttal, however in the interest of not intruding on Jean-Pierre's entry with an overly-long comment, I've just put a short response on his blog post with a pointer to this one.

Misconceptions and Misunderstandings, or Errors and Plain-old FUD?

I’m writing to correct *just a few* of the misconceptions about what is really important in high-performance, scalable data warehouse systems, errors, or just plain-old pure “competitive FUD” points from Jean-Pierre's posting earlier today. We certainly have posted some information recently about the TwinFin product and Curt Monash’s postings late Thursday provided more info. If his readers are interested in learning more, or even signing up for a “Test Drive”, they should visit www.netezza.com.

First off, I think this is a “banner day” for Netezza. We believe that TwinFin (and the other products in the new product family) extend both our performance and price-performance advantage over our competitors. We stand by our marketing statements that we regularly demonstrate 10-100X performance advantages over our competitors, particularly competitive offerings of the major incumbent DW system vendors (“Just who are those incumbents?” Jean-Pierre's readers may ask. Well let’s just say that we see Oracle as the incumbent system and/or a challenger system in over 50% of our deal flow.).

Regarding his claims about DBM being “faster than Netezza” (and I can only assume he meant at “real” data warehouse tasks) - we’re ready whenever Oracle feels up to actually taking one of their Database Machines onsite to a customer for a fair, open customer benchmark. So far, Oracle have been, shall we say, “a little reticent” to do on-site benchmark testing against Netezza.

Next, given the large number of incorrect points in the original posting, I think perhaps that just a few of them will be useful enough for readers to get the gist of just how far afield some of the ‘facts’ are:

• “It all comes down to data scan rates per rack”: Would that it were true that all of data warehousing boiled down to full-stream data scans (as if the entire world of analytics relied on “select count(*) from lineitem” types of queries), then we could all measure “goodness” on how many GB/sec of data could be burst-scanned in our systems. But that’s not the case. So we build Netezza’s data and analytic appliances to deliver the best possible overall performance at the best price and power requirements. As a consequence, and following from those same numbers as-posted, a single rack of TwinFin can process (not just scan) about 400 million rows of data per second. That’s process, as in: “scan, decompress, project, restrict, AND join, etc.”. Need more processing firepower? Netezza’s system performance scales linearly with the addition of more S-Blades: at the low-end, the TwinFin 3 can deliver as much as 100M rows/second of processing horsepower, while the TwinFin 120 can provide you with 4 billion rows/second.  Does a system that still relies on using SMP-based servers running “plain old” Oracle 11g RAC scale similarly for data warehousing?
  

• “Non-open Linux running on FPGAs”: I’m really not sure what (if anything) was meant by this, but saying that Netezza’s FPGAs “are apparently running non-open Linux” is oxymoronic on at least two different levels (FPGAs don’t typically “run” an OS and, “non-open Linux” - really?)
  

• “User data & compresssion”: I also enjoyed the accounting of all that “user data” available to DBM users in the Oracle table and the various comments about compression. When Netezza quotes user data capacities in our systems, the numbers reflect real raw user data space, not space that will be further reduced because of required indexes in an attempt to boost performance. Furthermore, Netezza’s compression & decompression techniques allow us to extract “pure performance” from their use. By not relying on CPU cycles to decompress the data before we can process it any further, the FPGA engines decompress the data, on-the-fly, as fast as it streams off the disk drives. Can Oracle make either of those claims?
  

• “Tolerating node failures without downtime”: In perhaps the most bald-faced inaccuracy, the Oracle blog claimed, that Netezza “continues to lack the ability to tolerate node failures without downtime”. This I can only chock up to pure competitive “FUD-ism” as our capabilities in this area have been quite strong throughout the four generations of Netezza appliances and are further strengthened in TwinFin. Netezza is a fully-redundant system with no single point of failure, even in our smallest systems. Failover in the presence of failures of the disk drives, S-Blades, internal networking or host processors (in short, everything) is automatic and done in-service, with hot-swappable replacement throughout.
  

• “Appliance simplicity”: One thing Jean-Pierre didn’t address that might have been humorous to see his take on is the notion of “appliance simplicity” - basically the ability to build, support and maintain large to very large-sized data warehouses, with heavy workloads, with no or minimal tuning, partitioning, indexing or other “performance duct tape” required. Routinely, this capability in the Netezza systems is what delights our customers most and we have customers managing systems with several hundreds of terabytes of user data (not indexes + data, mind you - real data) with fractions of an FTE (full-time employee) devoted to them.
  

I hope that clears up some of the misconceptions. If any of Jean-Pierre's readers or Oracle customers would like to see or hear more about TwinFin for themselves, we definitely would invite them to come stop by our booth (#207) at TDWI or come to one or our regional Enzee Universe events coming to a location near you.