f



Raw device VS cooked file - any benchmark recently done?

Hi everybody,

a question about raw VS cooked once again (sorry about that), hopefully
this time a bit different.

I am using IDS 10.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 4, as well as on Solaris
8 and 9. I use Informix since years, and always have installed it making use
of raw devices, since there always have been a clear statement in the IBM
documentation telling that on UNIX raw devices are the suggested choice for
the best I/O performance. The IBM IDS 10 Server Administrator Guide,
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/25122672.pdf, at page 241 says
infact:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<On UNIX, you should use raw disk devices to store data whenever
performance is important.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, looking further in the same document, at page 242, I have noticed that
for the first time there is also this new and interesting statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Important: While you should use raw disk devices on UNIX to achieve better
performance, recent advances in I/O caching for cooked writes can provide
similar if not better performance. To determine the best device performance,
perform benchmark testing on the system with both types of devices for the
dbspace and table layout.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This last sentence was not included in the previous versions of the
documentation (checked for IDS 9.4).

I have been googling around, finding out on the IIUG repository that the
measured performance of raw VS cooked VS cooked on filesystem is roughly X,
X-20%, X-35% respectively. Source of these figures:
http://www.iiug.org/resources/cdi_archive/2005.05/cdii.137120

I was wondering if anyone have recently done a benchmark using IDS 10 on UNIX
configured with raw areas versus the same engine configured to use cooked files
over filesystem, where the cooked file is stored on a device where "I/O caching
for cooked writes can provide similar if not better performance".

In other words, I would like to understand if that is really true and
what feature should the disk device or SAN have in order to meet the
requirements of being good in "I/O caching for cooked writes".

One last thing I don't understand is if, in case there is a device capable
to be good in "I/O caching for cooked writes", it would be equally good in
cooked READS.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanx in advance,
   Rupan3rd (from Italy)
0
Rupan3rd
1/10/2006 2:50:16 PM
comp.databases.informix 16083 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

3 Replies
513 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

At the Southeast Informix User Group, I sat through a presentation that
covered Linux. The presenter said that with the newest Kernel it no
longer mattered if you used raw. The presentation is at this website:

http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2005/Forum2005Sessions.html

It was called:

IDS in a Linux Environment

The presenter might even have some benchmarks.

0
bozon
1/10/2006 3:18:23 PM
I would really like to see any evidence that people have on this issue.  =
I
have a number of systems that are running with acceptable performance on =
raw
disks.  But could we be doing better and at what cost?

But from almost 20 years of working with this disk architecture and with
lots of other architectures I have discovered that the performance that =
you
can get out of a disk system is in almost direct proportion to the =
amount of
time that you, the administrator, put into it.  If you want the ultimate
performance then spend a lot of time doing the systems engineering - but =
if
you can get acceptable performance without doing much then so be it.  =
Many
modern disk architectures can give you acceptable performance without =
raw
disk - now.  But will that continue when the UNIX file system gets more
fragmented?  And what are the other reasons for using raw disk - think =
about
backup and recovery as well.

Regards

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org =
[mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org]
On Behalf Of Rupan3rd
Sent: 10 January 2006 14:50
To: informix-list@iiug.org
Subject: Raw device VS cooked file - any benchmark recently done?


Hi everybody,

a question about raw VS cooked once again (sorry about that), hopefully =
this
time a bit different.

I am using IDS 10.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 4, as well as on
Solaris 8 and 9. I use Informix since years, and always have installed =
it
making use of raw devices, since there always have been a clear =
statement in
the IBM documentation telling that on UNIX raw devices are the suggested
choice for the best I/O performance. The IBM IDS 10 Server Administrator
Guide, http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/25122672.pdf, at page 241
says
infact:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
<<On UNIX, you should use raw disk devices to store data whenever
performance is important.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--

However, looking further in the same document, at page 242, I have =
noticed
that for the first time there is also this new and interesting =
statement:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
<<Important: While you should use raw disk devices on UNIX to achieve =
better
performance, recent advances in I/O caching for cooked writes can =
provide
similar if not better performance. To determine the best device =
performance,
perform benchmark testing on the system with both types of devices for =
the
dbspace and table layout.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
This last sentence was not included in the previous versions of the
documentation (checked for IDS 9.4).

I have been googling around, finding out on the IIUG repository that the
measured performance of raw VS cooked VS cooked on filesystem is roughly =
X,
X-20%, X-35% respectively. Source of these figures:
http://www.iiug.org/resources/cdi_archive/2005.05/cdii.137120

I was wondering if anyone have recently done a benchmark using IDS 10 on
UNIX configured with raw areas versus the same engine configured to use
cooked files over filesystem, where the cooked file is stored on a =
device
where "I/O caching for cooked writes can provide similar if not better
performance".

In other words, I would like to understand if that is really true and =
what
feature should the disk device or SAN have in order to meet the =
requirements
of being good in "I/O caching for cooked writes".

One last thing I don't understand is if, in case there is a device =
capable
to be good in "I/O caching for cooked writes", it would be equally good =
in
cooked READS.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanx in advance,
   Rupan3rd (from Italy) _______________________________________________
Informix-list mailing list
Informix-list@iiug.org =
http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

0
malcolm
1/10/2006 3:38:15 PM
I know what pros and cons of using raw might be. My need is to have the best
performance for my OLTP system, therefore I was wordering if and in what cases
it might be actually true that there are disk devices able to achieve "I/O
caching for cooked writes" that "can provide similar if not better performance"
than raw areas.

Still the documentation does not explicitly say if the cooked READS would be
that good as well nor how to benchmark nor the effect of the fragmentation.

Regards
   Rupan3rd


malcolm weallans wrote:
> I would really like to see any evidence that people have on this issue.  I
> have a number of systems that are running with acceptable performance on raw
> disks.  But could we be doing better and at what cost?
> 
> But from almost 20 years of working with this disk architecture and with
> lots of other architectures I have discovered that the performance that you
> can get out of a disk system is in almost direct proportion to the amount of
> time that you, the administrator, put into it.  If you want the ultimate
> performance then spend a lot of time doing the systems engineering - but if
> you can get acceptable performance without doing much then so be it.  Many
> modern disk architectures can give you acceptable performance without raw
> disk - now.  But will that continue when the UNIX file system gets more
> fragmented?  And what are the other reasons for using raw disk - think about
> backup and recovery as well.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Malcolm
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org]
> On Behalf Of Rupan3rd
> Sent: 10 January 2006 14:50
> To: informix-list@iiug.org
> Subject: Raw device VS cooked file - any benchmark recently done?
> 
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> a question about raw VS cooked once again (sorry about that), hopefully this
> time a bit different.
> 
> I am using IDS 10.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 4, as well as on
> Solaris 8 and 9. I use Informix since years, and always have installed it
> making use of raw devices, since there always have been a clear statement in
> the IBM documentation telling that on UNIX raw devices are the suggested
> choice for the best I/O performance. The IBM IDS 10 Server Administrator
> Guide, http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/25122672.pdf, at page 241
> says
> infact:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<On UNIX, you should use raw disk devices to store data whenever
> performance is important.>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> However, looking further in the same document, at page 242, I have noticed
> that for the first time there is also this new and interesting statement:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<Important: While you should use raw disk devices on UNIX to achieve better
> performance, recent advances in I/O caching for cooked writes can provide
> similar if not better performance. To determine the best device performance,
> perform benchmark testing on the system with both types of devices for the
> dbspace and table layout.>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This last sentence was not included in the previous versions of the
> documentation (checked for IDS 9.4).
> 
> I have been googling around, finding out on the IIUG repository that the
> measured performance of raw VS cooked VS cooked on filesystem is roughly X,
> X-20%, X-35% respectively. Source of these figures:
> http://www.iiug.org/resources/cdi_archive/2005.05/cdii.137120
> 
> I was wondering if anyone have recently done a benchmark using IDS 10 on
> UNIX configured with raw areas versus the same engine configured to use
> cooked files over filesystem, where the cooked file is stored on a device
> where "I/O caching for cooked writes can provide similar if not better
> performance".
> 
> In other words, I would like to understand if that is really true and what
> feature should the disk device or SAN have in order to meet the requirements
> of being good in "I/O caching for cooked writes".
> 
> One last thing I don't understand is if, in case there is a device capable
> to be good in "I/O caching for cooked writes", it would be equally good in
> cooked READS.
> 
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanx in advance,
>    Rupan3rd (from Italy) _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
> 
0
Rupan3rd
1/12/2006 4:18:03 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

RE: Raw device VS cooked file
In my experience with AIX. The new enhanced journal file system (JFS2), there are file system option to use SIO or DIO. Using DIO (direct io) gives pretty close results to raw partition with Oracle and Informix. I am not sure if Solaris, HPUX or Linux has any option similar to AIX Basim Chafik Senior Systems Analyst IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert (CATE) 1.800.688.4895 basim.chafik@plx.com plexus (Division of BancTec) -----Original Message----- From: Rupan3rd [mailto:rupan.nospam.3rd@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:18 AM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Raw device VS cooked file - any benchmark recently done? I know what pros and cons of using raw might be. My need is to have the best performance for my OLTP system, therefore I was wordering if and in what cases it might be actually true that there are disk devices able to achieve "I/O caching for cooked writes" that "can provide similar if not better performance" than raw areas. Still the documentation does not explicitly say if the cooked READS would be that good as well nor how to benchmark nor the effect of the fragmentation. Regards Rupan3rd malcolm weallans wrote: > I would really like to see any evidence that people have on this issue. I > have a number of systems that are running with acceptable performance on raw > disks. But could we be doing better and at what cost? > > But from almost ...

IDS 10 on RHEL4 Linux: I/O benchmark of RAW DEVICES vs BLOCK DEVICES vs COOKED FILES
Hello there, this is a long message (sorry in advance) which contains some hopefully interesting information. There are also some questions at the end. I have this nice new Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 machine, it's an HP DL 385 with 8 internal 10K RPM SAS disks, 2 dual-core AMD Opteron CPUs and 4 GB RAM. Machine features 256 Mb of cache on the disks controller. Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/p6k6y I have installed Informix Dynamic Server 10.00.FC4 (64 bit). I bumped into this IBM article: http://tinyurl.com/gfovb, where it says that Informix IDS 10 on RHEL4 Linux is able to access block devices in unbuffered fashion -like it does for the raw devices- using KAIO (Kernel Asynchronous I/O). The server is brand new, and I can play with it a bit before it goes into production, so I decided to do some performance testing of RAW vs BLOCK vs COOKED, to see which one was better from the I/O performance point of view. Some definitions, first: * RAW DEVICE or CHARACTER DEVICE = devices through which data is transmitted one character at a time, using unbuffered input and output routines; each character is read from, or written to, the device immediately; such devices are disk partitions without a file system on them, and are therefore managed from outside the operating system using direct access and bypassing the OS layer and its cache * BLOCK DEVICE = devices through which data is transmitted in the form of blocks, the most sign...

Can I create a file-based standby database for a RAC database on raw device?
RDBMS Version: 9.2.0.5 Operating System and Version: Solaris 8 Error Number (if applicable): Product (i.e. SQL*Loader, Import, etc.): Data Guard Product Version: 9.2.0.5 Can I create a file-based standby database for a RAC database on raw device? We want to setup a disaster recovery site for a RAC database on raw device. For reducing the work of configurations, we consider to use a file-based datbase as the remote standby database. Is there any problem or compatible issue to do this ? Regards, William On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:28:55 +0200, William wrote (in article <544e016e.0409291928...

Raw vs. Cooked files
Hello, I am installing IDS 10 on RHEL3 on an intel x86 server. I need to make the choice between raw devices and cooked files. I found the following information in the FAQ's. Is this information still accurate? Do cooked files continue to be significantly slower than the raw files? I have heard that UNIX file systems have improved over the years and the performance divide between raw and cooked files has narrowed considerabley. Is it true? Thanks! - Rajesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.38 Is raw disk faster th...

Measurements: (was: Raw vs. Cooked files)
Hi, if you are interested : http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/library/techpapers/pdf/gm130667.pdf (There's a part where they tested raw devices vs. file system files as well. These measurements were all done on zSeries, not by myself as I did not get to do such extensive work. But this document is really extensive ...) Regards, Martin -- Martin Fuerderer IBM Informix Development Munich, Germany Information Management owner-informix-list@iiug.org wrote on 19.05.2005 16:43:23: > Martin Fuerderer wrote: > > Hi, > > I emailed a simple r...

raw vs. cooked files under linux
Hi all, i am an linux newbie. I must shift our Databases from SCO Unix (IDS 7.31 UD4) to SuSE Linux Enterprise Edition 8.1 (2.4.21-190-smp glibc 2.2.5) or (8.2) or 9 and SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (2.6.11.4 glibc 2.3.4) (IDS 7.31 UD8). Later on i want to upgrade (in place) to IDS 10.0. Which Version of SuSE Linux Enterprise Edition must I use (8.? , 9 ..)? Under Sco Unix we use raw-devices. Is it better to use cooked files or raw files under these Linux-Versions? A colleague mentioned, it can be, that later releases of Linux don't support raw-devices. Is that correct? ...

Re: Raw vs. Cooked files
Yes even with DB2 UDB you can get 20-25% improvement going with RAW over Cooked. If you use cooked the IO has to be written by the Unix Operating system - another set of commands to execute. Raw is controlled by the database. Why o Why Are we still having this discussion? Rob Vorbroker --- Rajesh Kapur <rkapur@mpr.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I am installing IDS 10 on RHEL3 on an intel x86 > server. I need to make the > choice between raw devices and cooked files. > I found the following information in the FAQ's. Is > this information still ...

Re: Raw vs. Cooked files #2
Hi, I'd say the correct answer to the question is: "It depends." -------------------------------------------------------------------- The implementation of file system I/O buffering by the OS can be very efficient on Linux. But for that the OS needs sufficient memory for the buffering. And this is what makes the "It depends". Therefore there are 2 extremes: a) almost all physical memory is used by IDS in the form of shared memory (allocated SHM segments listed by "onstat -g seg"). A good indication for this scenario is a machine tha...

Re: Measurements: (was: Raw vs. Cooked files)
Hi, maybe. :) This work was done by zSeries people (which are in a different department/organization from us in IBM Informix Data Management ...). They used IDS mainly for their purpose (to show zLinux capabilities like scaling with a real, commercially available application). Therefore we cannot directly demand from them to do this again with IDS 10.00. However, there is a possibility, that for their next round of measurements they will use IDS 10.00 (as they made good experiences with IDS 9.4). Though in that case I would not expect results before sometime next year .......

Migrate data from raw device to cooked file
Hi. Solaris 2.6 IDS 7.31. Company purchased new storage device and are going to move data to that base. "Old" system use raw devices, "new" will be on files. IDS is configured to use links to raw devices, so admin is going to rearange links after data is moved. They use onbar with SQL Backtrack, so one way of moving data would be to make backup, then restore data on new system. Only thing which worries me, is how good will backups work, if data is taken from raw devices, and put to files, any information about that? Also, can we try to dd data from raw de...

Re: Raw vs. Cooked files #3
HOWEVER, Informix IDS does not user the OS buffering. It opens all COOKED chunks with O_SYNC which bypasses most of the benefits of the buffering in favor of added data integrity. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Fuerderer <MARTINFU@de.ibm.com> At: 5/18 4:27 Hi, I'd say the correct answer to the question is: "It depends." -------------------------------------------------------------------- The implementation of file system I/O buffering by the OS can be very efficient on Linux. But for that the OS needs sufficient memory fo...

AW: raw vs. cooked files under linux
Thank you very much, Jean and Sandor, for your quick answers. One question more: I saw in the List on link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/informix/linux/ids.html that IDS 7.31.UD8 don't support SUSE SLES9. Do you know, whether IDS 7.31.UD8 works under SUSE SLES9, because first i want to install IDS 7.31.UD8 on Linux and later IDS 10.0 without (if possible) changing the Linux Version? Thanks. Heinz -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sandor Szabo [mailto:sandor.szabo@de.ibm.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2005 13:31 An: Heinz Weitkamp Cc: user-group Info...

Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux
SCO -> Linux ... good ;) If you want to upgrade to IDS 10.0 then better use Suse 9 'cause IDS use Kernel 2.6 specific features like KAIO. There is a nice document on IDS 10 and Linux on IBM site (can't remember link...). Regarding cooked vs. raw devices O bet for raw devices, they are very easy to configure in linux and give you some benefits like KAIO for example. J. Heinz Weitkamp escribi�: > Hi all, > > i am an linux newbie. > I must shift our Databases from SCO Unix (IDS 7.31 UD4) to SuSE Linux > Enterprise Edition 8.1 (2.4.21-190...

Re: Measurements: (was: Raw vs. Cooked files) #2
Hi, > Why is NOAGE set to 0? Surely it should be set to 1? For this work the machine was dedicated solely to IDS server. No other applcations were running on the machine. Therefore NOAGE 1 vs. 0 would not have made much of a difference as there were no other processes to compete with IDS for CPU-time. Regards, Martin -- Martin Fuerderer IBM Informix Development Munich, Germany Information Management owner-informix-list@iiug.org wrote on 29.06.2005 02:32:39: > > Nice but.... > > Can we get this done with IDS 10? > > Set RESIDENT to -1 to make...

RE: raw vs. cooked files under linux #9
-----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of John Carlson Sent: 13 May 2005 03:48 AM > >Almost zero? Will you be in Denver? Come see how many Informix DBAs attend >my own sessions or Jonathan's or Lester's. There are a lot more of us out >there then you imagine. > [snip] >As for the job security comments . . . just remember that there are >still a goodnumber of DBAs who will not be able to go to Denver. True, my company will only allow me to go places I can drive ...

Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux #8
How does one use O_SYNC with and ext3 filesystem on Linux? I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Normally I use raw but SA and management would rather use cooked. They would also rather use Postgres but that another story. Thanks >You assert that cooked files are as fast today as RAW on SANs. Have YOU >tested it? Are you comparing RAW to COOKED with O_SYNC? Or are you >depending on the vendor stats? Not me, not with my reputation, user >satisfaction, and my job at stake. > > sending to informix-list Peter J Diaz de Leon wrote: > How doe...

Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux #7
We are running 24 instances of IDS 9.4 on 24 machines - about 95% raw chunks - no problems so far -Can you explain some of your reasoning below? What specifically are the risks and additional management? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Data Goob" <datagoob@netscape.net> To: <informix-list@iiug.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux > Art S. Kagel wrote: > > Heinz Weitkamp wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > > > > > > Go RAW all the way. Contrary to the Goob'...

RE: raw vs. cooked files under linux #5
We use raw chunks on all our unix versions. Most are Linux. We find it easier to set up and manage raw devices, including under Linux. We also have a SAN environment running RAW devices under Linux - no problems at all. We have not had any issues and that includes recovering systems. Its all very simple when using RAW devices. MW > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org > [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Data Goob > Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2005 1:09 p.m. > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: raw vs. cook...

Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux #4
I guess almost all of us are convinced at this point of the performance improvement from using raw devices. But it would be great if we could get a benchmark report with a couple of Filesystems, specially on Linux, just in case we really need to use Filesystems. (JFS, Ext3, XFS , ReiserFS, ... ) I am a fan of XFS on Linux, because of its speed/stability/reliability against the other filesystems. I would be glad to see if XFS is better for database-OLTP performance or not. Could someone point us to a benchmark report of filesystems/raw devices ? Best Regards ----- Origina...

RE: raw vs. cooked files under linux #6
When you compare cooked versus raw here, are you focusing on Linux only, or talking about this in general - other Unix platforms as well ? -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Data Goob Sent: 11 May 2005 03:08 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux If you are in a slow-change environment raw-files are not a bad thing. They create extra problems on the management side that cooked files do not. Fast-changing environments create more demand on your time so why put y...

RE: Migrate data from raw device to cooked file
Or: 1. Bring the server down 2. Copy old raw-device chunks to new file-based using 'dd ...' 3. Switch chunk links 4. Bring the server up ------------------------------------------ Alexey Sonkin > From: briceavila@hotmail.com [mailto:briceavila@hotmail.com] > > Well, to answer your question, try: > > 1. Backup > 2. Down the instance > 3. Redefine the chunks from raw to cooked > 4. Restore > > That said, why not user Veritas or Legato? They can backup raw or > cooked chunks, and restore either to the other (cooked --> raw an...

Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux #10
DA Morgan said: > Data Goob wrote: >> Art, >> >> Your points are well made, and I'm willing to admit I could be >> misinformed, but quite honestly you are working in an exceptional >> environment compared to a lot of environments out there. You >> make the assertion that everyone should simply get it when it >> comes to disk drives, and quite honestly very few of us can keep >> up with this. You also make the assumption that it is easy when >> you should see what I have to work with when using sys admins--you >>...

Re: raw vs. cooked files under linux #2
Dear Heinz, I would suggest that you pick SUSE SLES 9 This SUSE version works perfectly with IDS 10. Please check the following link: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/informix/linux/ids.html With IDS 10 you have the freedom of choice to use cooked or raw devices with KAIO This link should answer your raw device support question http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0503szabo/?ca=dgr-lnxw41IDSTen Let me know if you have any additional questions. bye Sandor IBM Informix Development Munich Information Management Hollerithstra�e 1 81...

RE: raw vs. cooked files under linux #3
We're about to setup a new client on IDS 10 on Linux and I've now seen two recommendations for SUSE in relation to IDS 10. Does anyone have experience with Redhat Enterprise Edition and IDS 10? Any issues there that we should be aware of? Bill Weaver Director of Engineering Amicus, Inc. 512-531-3463 (office) 512-531-3401 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Sandor Szabo Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:31 AM To: Heinz Weitkamp Cc: user-group Informix (E-Mail); owner-informix-list@iiug...

Web resources about - Raw device VS cooked file - any benchmark recently done? - comp.databases.informix

Benchmark (venture capital firm) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Benchmark is an American venture capital firm responsible for the early stage funding of several successful startups . In 1997, the firm invested ...

Hootsuite Announces Global Agency Partner Program, Social Business Benchmark Survey Results
... and their account teams stay on top of social media trends and technology, and it released the results of its Hootsuite Social Business Benchmark ...

LinkBench: A database benchmark for the social graph - Facebook
Facebook Engineering hat eine Notiz mit dem Titel LinkBench: A database benchmark for the social graph geschrieben. Du kannst den vollständigen ...

Case Study: Auto brand, SPMD SocialCode beat Facebook ad CPA benchmark by 27 percent
... Preferred Marketing Developer SocialCode shows that an auto brand working with SocialCode was able to use Facebook ads to beat CPA benchmarks ...

faroo_p2p: 1000x Faster Spelling Correction updated: The benchmark is in! http://t.co/oY18ohyd #faroo ...
faroo_p2p: 1000x Faster Spelling Correction updated: The benchmark is in! http://t.

Andy Rachleff of Benchmark Capital claims that annually, there are 15 technology companies created that ...
Answer (1 of 3): Unfortunately I never published this research. It was prepared for a speech I gave a number of years ago and then updated. That ...

Bonsai Benchmark on the App Store on iTunes
Get Bonsai Benchmark on the App Store. See screenshots and ratings, and read customer reviews.

All sizes - MySpace Sandbox Developer Party - Bill Gurley of Benchmark Capital - Flickr - Photo Sharing ...
Flickr is almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world. Show off your favorite photos and videos to ...

Micromax Yu Yureka Long Review, Camera, Benchmarks, Price, Cyanogen User Interface Overview - YouTube ...
Visit http://www.gadgetstouse.com - to read more detailed reviews, unboxing, hands on and overview of smartphones, tablets, tech and gadgets ...

Brent joins other oil benchmarks below $80 a barrel
... year above $115. Brent crude fell below US$80 a barrel for the first time in more than four years on Thursday, joining the Asian regional benchmarks ...

Resources last updated: 2/29/2016 7:55:45 AM