BM Seer Facts & Questions from an Anonymous Sun Source

Configs used for SPECpower_ssj

Thursday May 08, 2008

Yet another SPECpower_ssj of a "different" configuration:

  • tiny memory: ONLY 4GB!
  • low GHZ CPU: only 2.83GHz QC
  • tiny config: only 1 chip!
Why do the servers that vendors publish on SPECpower_ssj2008 look so different from servers used on other benchmarks? See, this is the problem with NOT adding perf/watt on every benchmark as published. What can the industry learn from low-GHz small-memory configurations?

I a previous posting I mentioned that HP configurations used in other benchmarks have reasonable-sized memory and high-GHz CPUs, I'll dig up the same on IBM, or you can just look at the www.spec.org website yourself:
64GB: HP DL580 G5 (4 quad-core Xeon 2.933GHz)
64GB: HP DL585 G2 (4 dual-core Opteron 3GHz)
32GB: HP DL380 G5 (2 quad-core Xeon 2.66GHz)
32GB: HP DL380 (2 quad-core Xeon 3GHz)
32GB: HP BL685c (4 dual-core Opteron 3GHz)
32GB: HP BL460c (2 quad-core Xeon 3GHz)
for more see: http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/hp_dl580_g5_4_qc

It is so easy to measure watts on benchmarks that one publishes, Sun does it all of the time. Why other vendors not disclose their measured system wattages" Sun has shown them on UltraSPARC for YEARS!:
2008: UltraSPARC T2+
2007: UltraSPARC T2
2005: UltraSPARC T1 & T2000 blogs with power-performance
...and Sun is starting to show them on X64.

Disclosure statement:

IBM System x3200 M2 server achieved a Performance to Power Ratio of 1,054 overall ssj_ops/watt (one-chip quad-core Intel Xeon Processor X3360 (2.83GHz, 1 chip, 4 cores, 4 cores per chip, 2x6MB L2 cache, and 1333 MHz front-side bus), 4GB of DDR2 PC2-5300 FBD memory, IBM JavaTM 6 Runtime Environment, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition SP1. SPEC and the SPECpower are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. All results from www.spec.org as of 5/08/08.

Note: I got this info from the IBM website, as the report isn't up on SPEC.org yet. We'll all have to wait to find out measured watts @100% util on the 1-chip with only 4GB (!) configuration mentioned above. IBM didn't mention this in any of the press info or blogs.

Also how come no one jumps on IBM for lack of proper SPEC copyright information? IBM bloggers write:

    SPEC and the SPEC benchmark names are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.

[4] Comments
Like this post? del.icio.us | furl | slashdot | technorati | digg
Posted at 01:48PM May 08, 2008 by BM Seer in Benchmark Issues
Tags:
Comments:

You already know the answer, BM. In SPECpower, realistic configuration = lose. If you care so much, why don't you join SPEC and try to overthrow it from within?

Why do I bother...

Posted by Wes Felter on May 08, 2008 at 03:58 PM PDT #

If nothing else, picking up a keyboard and standing a SPECpost would probably demonstrate that there can be a little bit more to it than just "slap a meter on there and eyeball it."

WRT not mentioning the 100% load level, I'd think this might apply:

http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-Run_Reporting_Rules.html#3.1.4

so if there is information on the IBM website not adhering to the additional SPECpower reporting rules, best to get one of Sun's reps armed with the IBM URL(s) and have them bring it up.

Posted by rick jones on May 08, 2008 at 04:12 PM PDT #

Wes: I've never been a joiner :) or good at politics, or saying thing politically correct - as you guys always say. so my role is to call it as I see it and educate the outside world.

Rick: I didn't think they violated any 100% rule, I just haven't seen the disclosure report yet. I will look forward to seeing the tiny watts that this tiny config used, when it appears on the SPEC website. My only complaint on IBM was I didn't think you could say:
SPEC and the SPEC benchmark names are registered trademarks...

I thought you had to mention specific benchmark names, ie:
SPEC and SPECpower are registered trademarks...

Since I go to great pains to get the disclosure statements correct, I think IBM should as well.

OK... it's getting late, I shouldn't have logged in after coming home.

Posted by BM Seer on May 08, 2008 at 04:51 PM PDT #

Well, per the overarching SPEC OSG fair use rules, once someone has made part of a result public, say via a press release or blog entry, the content of the full disclosure is public too, so you should be able to go to Sun's SPEC reps, have them verify what I have said, and get copies of the given FDR even while under review.

Posted by rick jones on May 08, 2008 at 05:48 PM PDT #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed