AIX closed and on the way out?
|
|
|
|
The Herald, Scotland's biggest selling broadsheet, covers the Open Source Awards:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.1612694.0.0.php
|
|
|
|
Postscript:
9330 SAPS 2 processors Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor X5355 2.66 GHz
www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert4207.pdf
5120 SAPS 2 processors / 4 cores / 4 threads, Intel Xeon 5160 3 GHz
www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert3107.pdf
This is performance !?
4780 SAPS Sun Fire Model T2000, 1 processor / 8 cores / 32 threads
www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert4705.pdf
Posted by Triffids on August 09, 2007 at 03:26 AM PDT #
You'll see more results soon.
Triffids, as a reminder if you work for a partner company of SAP you must put the following disclosures when you post results. If you are not they you don't need to put this in, but as you can see the data in it would have allowed you to make a better comparison of systems. Don't worry I'm not asking you to identify yourself at all.
Disclosure Statement:
Two-tier SAP ECC 5.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark Sun Fire T2000 (1-way, 1 proc, 8 cores, 32 threads) 1x 1.2 GHz UltraSPARC T1, 32 GB mem, 950 SD benchmark users, 1.91 sec avg response time, Cert#2005047., MaxDB 7.5 database, Solaris 10; Two-tier SAP ECC 5.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark IBM System eServer p5 550 (4-way, 4 procs, 4 cores, 8 threads) 4x 1.9 GHz POWER5+, 32GB mem, 1,000 SD benchmark users, 1.97s avg resp time, Cert#2005040, IBM DB2 Universal Database 8.2.2, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9; Two-tier SAP ECC 6.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark Fujitsu Siemens Computers PRIMERGY Model BFi20 S2 (2 procs, 4 cores, 4 threads) 2x Intel Xeon 5160, 3.0 GHz, 16GB mem, 1,020 SD benchmark users, 1.94s avg resp time, Cert#2007031, Oracle 10g, Solaris 10; Two-tier SAP ECC 6.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark Fujitsu Siemens Computers PRIMERGY Model TX300 S3 (2 procs, 8 cores, 8 threads) 4x Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor X5355 2.66 GHz, 32GB mem, 1865 SD benchmark users, 1.99s avg resp time, Cert#2007025, SQL Server 2005, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition; SAP, R/3, mySAP reg TM of SAP AG in Germany and other countries. More info www.sap.com/benchmark.
I edited in:
2 processors into Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor X5355 2.66 GHz
...and..
32 threads to the Sun Fire T2000, 1 processor / 8 cores ...in order to make the comparisons more consistent.
|
|
|
|
Why does Sun designate yesterday's performance results as "estimates", why that word? Did some Sun marketeer just throw a dart and just pick a big number. No. All UltraSPARC T2 SPEC CPU and SPEC OMP metrics quoted are from full “reportable” runs, but are nevertheless designated as “estimates” because they use pre-production systems. Sun customer systems, to be announced later, are expected to perform similarly. SPEC rules do allow comparing these preliminary scores and published result.
Is Sun the only vendor to use this clause? No. Intel and AMD have made
a long history of using preliminary numbers at chip announcements to get
the word out about their performance. Sun is just following their lead,
and trumping their performance 
Ok, back to why the word "estimates?" The SPEC CPU committee voted to use that specific word for preliminary scores. Members include IBM, Intel, AMD, HP, .... And every employee of a member company must follow the rules.
Postings on Sun's UltraSPARC T2 performance:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/performance_of_the_new_sun
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ultrasparc_t2_more_floating_point
http://blogs.sun.com/sprack/entry/ultrasparc_t2_world_class_crypto
OpenSPARC T2:
http://blogs.sun.com/d/entry/ultrasparc_t2_documentation_available
Ubunu (aready booted on UltraSPARC T2):
Ubuntu & Canonical & UltraSPARC T1 (May06).
As a Sun employee I try my best to follow every rule when talking about results in public, but I'm an engineer so sometimes it is hard to follow all the legalese so I try to correct things as soon as I see an error. And I do my best to remind other Sun bloggers to put in the proper disclosure statement for SPEC & TPC benchmark results. Though quite honestly I wish SPEC & TPC would streamline the rules, make them more consistent, and minimize the lengthy disclosure statements.
Of course because Sun is in the lead and because I made some suggestions, I'm sure this entry will be fully scrutinized by every competitor. If I made errors let me know in the comments and I will correct them.
Disclosure Statement
SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, and SPEComp registered trademarks of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of August 6, 2007. Actually this one is short because I didn't put any specific results in this posting, the ones at the links have the more extensive disclosures because they show scores & results.
|
|
|
|
Beyond UltraSPARC T2 what other technologies matter? There are two more keys to Sun providing such effective performance in the
new single-chip Sun UltraSPARC T2 64-thread processor, that is Solaris (and
now of course OpenSolaris) and Sun Studio compilers. Here is a nice slide of the history of hardware history of SPARC, I borrowed this on from
an entry in "On the Record"
An important thing to remember that besides Sun's long history with SPARC, we've also lead the way in parallelism. Over 15 years ago, Solaris supported 64-way SPARC systems and provided near-linear scaling. For those of you old enough to remember, at that time IBM, SGI, HP, and everyone else thought there was no way Sun could produce effective 64-way systems. They were wrong and now our competitors have finally all have introduced systems with lots of processors and/or threads.
Solaris and Sun Studio compilers have a LONG history and lots of experience with industrial-strength applications with lots of threads.
Solaris and Sun Studio compilers were great at scaling to 64-way systems 15 years ago, with a lot more experience and hard work we are even better at scaling and will scale to lots more threads right now. Many thanks to all of those compiler & OS engineers!
Postings on Sun's UltraSPARC T2 performance:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/performance_of_the_new_sun
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ultrasparc_t2_more_floating_point
http://blogs.sun.com/sprack/entry/ultrasparc_t2_world_class_crypto
OpenSPARC T2:
http://blogs.sun.com/d/entry/ultrasparc_t2_documentation_available
...I've focused on Solaris, but there are options, for example Ubuntu. Ubuntu has already booted on the UltraSPARC T2.
As as a reminder Ubuntu and Canonical proved it on an UltraSPARC T1 almost 14 months ago, see this article on that work.
|
|
|
|
More about floating-point on the Sun UltraSPARC T2 in this posting, In the previous posting SPECfp_2006 scores and the UltraSPARC T2 design being open-sourced were discussed.
In the UltraSPARC T2 there are eight floating-point units that are well suited for scientific applications. Based upon preliminary runs the Sun UltraSPARC T2 processor at 1.4 GHz beats all single chip scores showing 14230(est)/15081(est) SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001.
How do these preliminary runs (we must use the term "estimated" by SPEC rules) compare to SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001 scores?
The SpecOMP benchmark is a test of the performance of 9 High Performance computing applications. It is used to compare the performance of shared memory servers. All C/C++ and FORTRAN applications in this suite use the OpenMP programming model that provides a portable, scalable model for developing parallel applications for platforms ranging from the desktop to the supercomputer.
The OpenMP Application Program Interface (API) supports multi-platform shared-memory parallel programming in C/C++ and Fortran on all architectures, from the largest Unix servers to the small Windows NT platforms.
Disclosure statement:
All UltraSPARC T2 SPEC CPU metrics quoted are from full “reportable” runs, but are nevertheless designated as “estimates” because they use preproduction systems. SPEC, and SPEComp registered trademarks of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz (1 chip, 8 cores, 64 threads) 14230 (est)/ 15081 (est) SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001. Competitive results from www.spec.org as of August 6, 2007. IBM p520 1.9GHz (1 chip, 2 cores, 4 threads) published 8141/8174 SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001.
|
|
|
|
Sun UltraSPARC T2 is an amazing chip and very fast! The UltraSPARC T2 features several industry firsts:
Based upon preliminary runs, the Sun UltraSPARC T2 processor at 1.4 GHz, beat all single chip scores showing 78.3 est. SPECint_rate2006. How do these preliminary runs (we must use the term "estimated" by SPEC rules) compare to SPECint_rate2006 results.
Performance per core doesn't matter GHz doesn't matter, what matters is numbers of cores, efficiency, and design of the chip! Competitors are saying that UltraSPARC T2 is proprietary... this makes no sense. both UltraSPARC T1 and UltraSPARC T2 are open source designs (www.opensparc.net). You do not find the latest design of Intel, AMD, or IBM as open source designs.
Disclosure Statement:
All Sun UltraSPARC T2 SPEC CPU metrics quoted are from full “reportable” runs, but are nevertheless designated as “estimates” because they use preproduction systems. SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp registered trademarks of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz (1 chip, 8 cores, 64 threads) 78.3 est. SPECint_rate2006, 62.3 est. SPECfp_rate2006. Competitive results from www.spec.org as of August 6, 2007. IBM POWER6 4.7GHz (1 chip, 2 cores, 4 threads) 60.9. SPECint_rate2006, 58.0 SPECfp_rate2006. AMD Barcelona 2.6 GHz (1 chip, 4 cores, 4 threads) 63.9 est SPECint_rate2006, 56.3 est. SPECfp_rate2006. Barcelona estimates based upon "The Register" article stating 2.6GHz quad is 21% and 50% faster than Intel 2.66 system. Fujitsu RX300 Intel X5355 2.66 GHz (1 chip, 4 cores, 4 threads) 52.8 SPECint_rate2006, 47.5 SPECfp_rate2006.
Reminder: The Niagara 2 score was obtained from a full "reportable" SPEC run, but is designated as an "estimate" because a pre-production system was used.
...more information on the UltraSPARC T2 later today.
|
|
|
|
IBM is stating that mainframes are good for consolidation: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/17998
For more insight on Mainframe linux see: http://blogs.sun.com/jsavit/entry/once_again_mainframe_linux_vs
or...
Also discussion at Slashdot: http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/07/31/238219.shtml
I'm a big fan of using consolidation to save on servers, increase server utilisation (which has a huge effect on power savings), and to simplify management -- but you can save even more money by doing this on Sun servers and using OpenSolaris.
|
|
|
|
Two Sun Fire X4200's each equipped with 2 2.8 GHz Opteron processors running the Sun Java System Application Server 9.1 and one Sun Fire T2000 equipped with 1 UltraSPARC 1.2 GHz T1 processor running PostgreSQL 8.2 database obtained a score of 813.73 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard on the SPECjAppServer2004 benchmark. This result is 3 times better price/performance than the latest HP dual-core Itanium2 results with Oracle (note3).
Benchmark was run entirely on Open Source software: GlassFish, PostgreSQL and Solaris.
Sun is the only vendor that has published results using Open Source databases (MySQL and PostgreSQL), demonstrating full commitment to these price-efficient database alternatives.
Sun Fire T2000 shows it stregths as a database server using PostgresSQL.
Competitive Landscape
SPECjAppServer2004 Results Page SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard (bigger is better), $/SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard (smaller is better)
| SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard |
J2EE Server | DB Server | $/JOPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | 813.73 | 2x Sun Fire X4200 8 cores, 4 chips @ 2.8 GHz Opteron 2220SE SJSAS 9.1 |
1x Sun Fire T2000 8 cores, 1 chip @ 1.2 GHz US-T1 PostgreSQL 8.2 |
$71 (1) |
| HP | 874.17 | 1x HP rx2660 4 cores, 2 chips @ 1.6 GHz Itanium 2 Oracle Application Server 10g Release 10.1.3.2 |
1x HP rx2660 4 cores, 2 chips @ 1.6 GHz Itanium 2 Oracle 10g |
$211 (2) |
Benchmark Description
SPECjAppServer2004 (Java Application Server) is a multi-tier benchmark for measuring the performance of Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) technology-based application servers. SPECjAppServer2004 is an end-to-end application which exercises all major J2EE technologies implemented by compliant application servers as follows:
Disclosure Statement:
SPECjAppServer2004: 1 Sun Fire T2000 (8 cores, 1 chip) and 2 Sun Fire X4200 (8 cores, 4 chips) 813.73 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard; 1 HP rx2660 (4 cores, 2 chips) and 1 HP rx2660 (4 cores, 2 chips) 874.17 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard; SPEC, SPECjAppServer reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of 07/23/2007.
Pricing obtained from publicly available sources.
Results Summary
| Certified Results | 813.73 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard | ||
| Reference Date: | July 23, 2007 | ||
| Systems: | 1 x Sun Fire T2000, 16GB | ||
| 2 x Sun Fire X4200, 8GB | |||
| Total Number Processors: | 1, 4 | ||
| Processor/GHz of Server: | UltraSPARC T1 1.2 GHz | ||
| Opteron 2220SE 2.8 GHz | |||
| Operating System: | Solaris 10 11/06 | ||
| Software: | Sun Java System Application Server 9.1 Platform Edition | ||
| PostgreSQL 8.2 | |||
| JVM: | J2SE 6.0 update 02 | ||
Pricing Substantiation
(note1) Sun ... all prices from www.sun.com
(note2) HP ... prices from URL's indicated below
|
|
|
|
40 6250 abaqus amd benchmarks best blackbox blade blogwatch cmt compilers core cryptography e25k e6900 eco exa fire fluent hp hpc ibm intel itanium itanium2 java jvm linpack linux lotus m8000 m9000 mcad mysql networking niagara opensolaris opensource opensparc opteron oracle performance power power5+ power6 powerflow practices record sap sap-sd scaling siebel solaris sparc spc-1 spc-2 spec specapc specfp_rate2006 specint_rate2000 specint_rate2006 specjappserver specjappserver2004 specjbb specjbb2005 specomp specompm2001 specpower storage storagetek studio studio11 sun sunw suse swap t1 t2 t2000 t5120 t5220 t6300 tpc-c tpc-e tpc-h ultra ultrasparc us-iv+ utilization virtualization wattage watts windows woodcrest x4100 x4200 x4500 x6250 x64 xeon
This theme brought to you by the Sun Green Team.
Go Green!
Did I read the date n the article right? Did it c...
yes it was from 2005, but the position hasn't chan...