Method of comparison for computer systems and apparatus therefor

(54) METHOD OF COMPARISON FOR

COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS
THEREFOR

(75) Inventor: John M. Quernemoen, New Brighton, MN (US)

(73) Assignee: Unisys Corporation, Blue Bell, PA (US)

( * ) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.

(21) Appl. No.: 09/514,506

(22) Filed: Feb. 29, 2000

(51) Int. C I. G06F 11/30

(52) U.S. CI 702/186; 707/1

(58) Field of Search 702/186; 707/1,

707/200; 709/200

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

5,065,360 A 11/1991 Kelly 395/800

5,617,514 A 4/1997 Dolby et al 395/51

5,630,025 A 5/1997 Dolby et al 395/51

5,701,471 A * 12/1997 Subramanyam 707/1

6,052,694 A * 4/2000 Bromberg 707/2

6,219,654 Bl * 4/2001 Ruffin 705/10

6,249,769 Bl * 6/2001 Ruffin et al 705/10

6,260,020 Bl * 7/2001 Ruffin et al 705/1

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Internet Web page at www.tpc.org, as of Jan. 17, 2002, which refers to and discusses the Applicant-admitted well-known TPC A,B,C, H, R, and W benchmarking criteria and results.*

Giladi et al., "SPEC as a Performance Evaluation Measure", IEEE, 1995.*

Compaq Computer Corporation, "White Paper", 5 pages, Jun. 1998.

Kim Shanely, "History and Overview of the TPC", 14 pages, Feb. 1998.

"TPC-C Results—Revision 3X", downloaded from www.tpc.org, 4 pages, dated prior to Feb. 29, 2000. "TPC-R Benchmark", downloaded from www.tpc.org, 2 pages, dated prior to Feb. 29, 2000.

"TPC-H Benchmark", downloaded from www.tpc.org, 2 pages, dated prior to Feb. 29, 2000.

Jack Stephens, "TPC-D The Industry Standard Decision Support Benchmark", 28 pages, dated prior to Feb. 29,2000. Select pages from www.tpc.org, 12 pages, downloaded Nov. 2, 1999.

User Guide, Compaq System Sizer v8.1 for Oracle8i NT4.0, Compaq Computer Corporation, Jun. 1999, pp. 1-40. User Guide, Compaq Sizer 2.30 for Microsoft SQL Server 7.0, Compaq Computer Corporation, Oct. 1999, pp. 1-44. "TPC-D Benchmark", downloaded from www.tpc.org, 6 pages, dated prior to Feb. 29, 2000.

* cited by examiner

Primary Examiner—Patrick Assouad

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm—Charles A. Johnson; Mark

T. Starr; Crompton, Seager & Tufte, LLC

A computerized method is disclosed which aids in the comparison of different computer systems according to their performance parameters under established or proprietary benchmark performance tables or databases. The method, particularly when implemented in executable code, allows system planners to conveniently make an accurate decision about what computer system will most efficiently meet their computing needs. System planners may also determine how much money is required for a marginal increase in performance. In this way, a system planner may consider whether the additional expenditures required to increase power or capacity across vendors results in a cost-effective increase, when compared against a less powerful but less expensive system.

29 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets