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.

HP watts up with no specification?

Friday Mar 21, 2008

HP DL 580 G5 = 387 watts at 100% target load

Reading "HP ProLiant DL580 G5 server posts highest 4P result on the new SPECpower_ssj2008(TM) benchmark" brochure leaves one quite confused. HP does not specify processor GHz or Memory size, why?. Take note SPEC members: you guys need to force that be clearly specified in the future, or you will just encourage confusion. An HP DL580 G5 4P QC 1.86GHz Xeon 16GB uses 387 watts at 100% target load!

...or... HP DL 580 G5 = 942 watts at average (uncomparable test)

IBM points to a Principled technologies paper (by the way, who commissioned that paper?). Looking at that paper they clearly specify the memory size, processor GHz, and measured average wattage. An HP DL580 G5 4P QC 2.93GHz Xeon 64GB uses 942 average watts!

I do not present these wattage numbers for comparison, as they are different tests. But what are the real watts of a DL580 G5? Clearly HP isn't telling us what we need to know.

I'd suggest SPEC require better disclosure of information and clearly show effects of processor GHz and memory size. MEMORY SIZE makes a HUGE difference in watts. Wake up world! Again my plea to add power measurements and power-performance metrics to all performance benchmarks at full utilization.

SPEC Disclosure statement

SPECpower_ssj2008:HP Proliant DL580 G5 (4-chip QC Xeon L7345 1.86GHz, 16GB), 546 overall ssj_ops/watt, 359523 ssj_ops and 387 watt at 100% target load, 255512 ssj_ops and 359 watt at 70% target load, and 71409 ssj_ops and 294 watt at 20% target load. SPEC, SPECpower reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of 12/11/07.

note: if anyone has corrections to the above disclosure, let me know in comment below as quickly as you can and I will correct it immediately. I don't attend SPEC meetings so I don't know all of the rules, but I try my best to write disclosures correctly.

Memory size matters most in watts

Tuesday Jan 08, 2008

Memory size is one of the most important configuration details you need to know when comparing measured server watts. This has been true for a long time.

In 2006 I dug into the actual watts used by 2-socket Woodcrest Xeon servers.

Woodcrest:
330 watts 2-socket 8GB
430 watts 2-socket 16GB
510 watts 2-socket 32GB

Now we have even lower-watt CPUs that have a lot more power management to reduce CPU watts, which means in general that memory size will matter even more in the future.

Another fact is that all of the servers I see using virtualization are being configured with larger and larger memory (32GB to 128GB for 2-socket servers!).

This is why I'm not overly impressed with wattage measured on small-memory configurations like 8GB or 16GB.

Google authors make case for energy-proportional computing

Thursday Jan 03, 2008

Luiz André Barroso and Urs Hölzle of Google have written an article called: The Case for Energy-Proportional Computing. You can find the IEEE Computing article here.

They correctly point out that memory (and disk) are a key factor in power used. Too bad that new SPECpower benchmark only favors tiny-memory configurations, and vendors do not publish measured watts on real-size memory configurations.

They miss the fact that low utilization wastes more power than energy-proportional designs will get them, as we've pointed out here

Disclosure statement

SPECpower_ssj2008. SPEC, SPECpower reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. See www.spec.org.

Chopped configs and SPECpowerssj2008

Wednesday Jan 02, 2008

Timothy Prickett Morgan in the IT Jungle missed the point a bit when writing about SPECpower_ssj2008. It is not that you can't use power supply ratings to determine power usage. This difference really proves that these are chopped configs that are being used just for making numbers on SPECpower_ssj2008. Vendors who are trying to build power-efficient systems don't make mistakes like using small configs on power supplies that are too big. Power supplies are most efficient when the watts drawn are near the power supply ratings. If HP thought these small-memory chopped configs were typical they would have put smaller power supplies in them.

Have power supplies that are ONLY at 22% load (269/1200) is smoking gun aimed right at showing this is not typical config...

"it is no surprise at all that the best metrics for this are coming from streamlined two-socket machines so far. An HP ProLiant DL160 G5 with two quad-core Xeon E5450 processors running at 3 GHz with 16 GB of main memory and a single 80 GB 7.2K SATA drive was able to max out at 308,022 ops/sec on the test; the average idle power draw on this machine was 160 watts and when running full speed (99.2 percent of CPU capacity), it drew 269 watts. This machine had a 1200 watt power supply, which tells you how useless these maximum draw ratings on power supplies can be in determining power usage."

http://www.itjungle.com/bns/bns121807-story01.html

Disclosure statement

SPECpower_ssj2008: HP Proliant DL160 G5 (2-chip QC Xeon E5450 3GHz), 698 overall ssj_ops/watt. SPECpower_ssj2008:HP Proliant DL580 G5 (4-chip QC Xeon L7345 1.86GHz), 546 overall ssj_ops/watt, 359523 ssj_ops and 387 watt at 100% target load, 255512 ssj_ops and 359 watt at 70% target load, and 71409 ssj_ops and 294 watt at 20% target load. Results from www.spec.org as of 12/11/07.