Wednesday Oct 24, 2007
You have to read some things carefully
"...And the good news is that about 40-70% of the
stuff we do in performance tuning actually ends up helping end users,"
-- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow), May 06, http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
"This is feasible in the TPC-C benchmark because there
are only five tables and only ten to fifteen columns in each table.
In a more realistic application, where there are many more queries
to be considered, the tables are typically much, much wider, in
the 80 to 100 column range; and there are dozens if not thousands
of tables. Then this kind of analysis(ed note: tuning) is no longer
practical." -- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow since '96), May 06, http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
"The idea is to get the numbers by hook and by crook." -- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow since '96), May 06, http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
The TPC-C benchmark is an industry standard for measuring the ability of a system to process complex online transactions and large volumes of business data. The TPC-C benchmark is unique in the way it exercises all components of a system, including processors, memory, networking, storage, operating system and database software, demonstrating total system performance in a way that many of the other benchmarks touted by some competitors do not. -- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow since '96), July 25, 2006, http://www-03.ibm.com/solutions/sap/doc/content/news/pressrelease/1623288130.html
Issues:
This means that 30% to 60% of IBM's TPC-C tuning is useless for customers.
IBM clearly over-hyped TPC-C, just 2-3 months after they publicly showed all of its problems and "optimizations" they used.
Next:
"Significantly, the high utilization rate of the System z9 mainframes -- systems can and do operate at 80 to 100 percent utilization -- combined with its ability to "virtualize" workloads, can enable a single mainframe processor to perform far more work than a single x86 processor running Microsoft Windows. The latter may run as low as 5 percent utilization." - IBM Press Release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/19577.wss
Issues:
used different work for mainframe and for its competitor.
"do" and "may" mean very different things
"mainframes do operate at 80-100%", "x86 processor running Microsoft Windows. The latter may run as low as 5%". So it is a valid but totally useless statement.
An equally invalid statement: x86 do operate at 80-100% and
mainframes may run as low as 5%.
Next:
"First of all, the math is really simple. 4.7 is greater than 1.4. IBM's POWER6 4.7 GHz chip is faster than Sun's 1.4 GHz UltraSPARC T1 chip. And second of all, the IBM System p 570 remains the #1 SPECjbb2005 2-core result (1)."
Marketing Program manager of IBM performance blog, Jun07
Issues:
Did not compare system or chip performance but only quoted the GHz of a chip?
Made a true statement about core count but ignored that that IBM cores cost much more than Sun UltraSPARC T1 and/or UltraSPARC T2 on a per core basis, I know this
is hard to verify since IBM isn't public about pricing, so you'll have to ask your IBM people to price specific configurations for you, be specific so you understand exactly what is priced.
Next:
"Even more impressive, the processor bandwidth of the POWER6 chip – 300 gigabytes per second -- could download the entire iTunes catalog in about 60 seconds" - IBM Press Release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
Issues:
Added every bandwidth (L3 cache, address bandwidth?!?,...) in a chip,
even though peak memory bandwidth is limited to at least a 10th of that, delivered is a lot less.
stated "processor bandwidth", even though "delivered" system bandwidth would actually be required to move the data (not address 
).
Next:
"IBM calculates that 30 SunFire v890s can be consolidated into a single rack of the new IBM machine, saving more than $100,000 per year on energy costs (3)." - IBM Press Release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
Issues:
used 2 year old sun result compared to power6 yet to be shipped as of may press release
said V890, so that people think it is a current comparison, had to read in the footnotes that it was 1.5 GHz slower CPU. Sun has introduced 1.8GHz, and 2.1GHz since.
made a "conservative" comparisons by giving IBM another 15% in performance
claimed Sun at 20% utilisation and IBM at 60% utilisation, that is one way to get 3x
over your competition
never showed exactly what power was drawn by a 4.7GHz, 64GB memory system,
at ??MHz DDR2 used in the comparison, etc.
This was a bit of a repeat, but some things should not be forgotten.
I've never been about popularity or names. You don't need my expertise
to see funny things in IBM's statements. Don't attack me, attack the facts.
Anonymously yours, Sun's BM Seer.
Disclosure statement:
TPC-C is a trademark of Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC). More info www.tpc.org.
Friday Oct 05, 2007
First:
"First of all, the math is really simple. 4.7 is greater than 1.4. IBM's POWER6 4.7 GHz chip is faster than Sun's 1.4 GHz UltraSPARC T1 chip. And second of all, the IBM System p 570 remains the #1 SPECjbb2005 2-core result (1)."
- Elisabeth Stahl, program manager of IBM performance marketing, 20 years experience, Jun07
Issues:
Did not compare system or chip performance but only quoted GHz of a chip.
Made a true statement about core count but ignored that that IBM core costs an order of magnitude more than Sun T1 on a per core basis
Next:
"Even more impressive, the processor bandwidth of the POWER6 chip – 300 gigabytes per second -- could download the entire iTunes catalog in about 60 seconds" - IBM Press Release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
Issues:
Added every bandwidth (L3 cache, address bandwidth?!?,...) in a chip,
even though peak memory bandwidth is limited to at least a 10th of that, delivered is a lot less.
stated "processor bandwidth", even though "delivered" system bandwidth would actually be required to move the data (not address ).
Next:
"IBM calculates that 30 SunFire v890s can be consolidated into a single rack of the new IBM machine, saving more than $100,000 per year on energy costs (3)." - IBM Press Release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
Issues:
used 2 year old sun result compared to power6 yet to be shipped as of may press release
implied V890, so that people think it is a current comparison, had to read in the footnotes that it was 1.5 GHz slower CPU. Sun has introduced 1.8GHz, and 2.1GHz since.
made a "conservative" comparisons by giving IBM another 15% in performance
claimed Sun at 20% util and IBM at 60% util to get bogus 3x factor
never showed exactly what power was drawn by a 4.7GHz, 64GB memory system,
at ??MHz DDR2 used in the comparison, etc.
...and many more.
Next:
"...And the good news is that about 40-70% of the
stuff we do in performance tuning actually ends up helping end users,"
-- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow), May 06, http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
"This is feasible in the TPC-C benchmark because there
are only five tables and only ten to fifteen columns in each table.
In a more realistic application, where there are many more queries
to be considered, the tables are typically much, much wider, in
the 80 to 100 column range; and there are dozens if not thousands
of tables. Then this kind of analysis(ed note: tuning) is no longer
practical." -- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow since '96), May 06, http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
"The idea is to get the numbers by hook and by crook." -- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow since '96), May 06, http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
The TPC-C benchmark is an industry standard for measuring the ability of a system to process complex online transactions and large volumes of business data. The TPC-C benchmark is unique in the way it exercises all components of a system, including processors, memory, networking, storage, operating system and database software, demonstrating total system performance in a way that many of the other benchmarks touted by some competitors do not. -- Bruce Lindsay(IBM Fellow since '96), July 25, 2006, http://www-03.ibm.com/solutions/sap/doc/content/news/pressrelease/1623288130.html
Issues:
This means that 30% to 60% of IBM's TPC-C tuning is useless for customers.
IBM clearly over-hyped TPC-C, just 2-3 months after they publicly showed all of its problems and "optimizations" they used.
Next:
"Significantly, the high utilization rate of the System z9 mainframes -- systems can and do operate at 80 to 100 percent utilization -- combined with its ability to "virtualize" workloads, can enable a single mainframe processor to perform far more work than a single x86 processor running Microsoft Windows. The latter may run as low as 5 percent utilization." - IBM Press Release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/19577.wss
Issues:
very convenient to use different work for mainframe and for its competitor.
"mainframes do operate at 80-100%", "x86 processor running Microsoft Windows. The latter may run as low as 5%". So it is a valid but totally useless statement.
"do" and "may" mean very different things
An equally invalid statement: x86 do operate at 80-100% and
mainframes may run as low as 5%.
Moral: Be VERY VERY CAREFUL when you read big blue.
Disclosure statement:
TPC-C is a trademark of Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC). More info www.tpc.org.
Monday Apr 30, 2007
When Sun was had the world record we said it was too simplistic and old, and
that was yeast ago. TPC-C has problems, IBM has heavily tuned it like this.
Why does IBM still point to this 14+ year old benchmark? Why do they
avoid new benchmarks with the lastest GHz full-system IBM p595 on:
- SPECjbb2005?
- SPECint_rate2006?
- SPECfp_rate2006?
- Linpack?
- SPECint_2006?
- SPECfp_2006?
- ....the list goes on...
Doesn't IBM want fair comparisons? I guess IBM would just be beaten by Sun
in performance and $/perf so they want to avoid comparisons.
It is funny that last year I egged HP on about SPECjbb2005, "why no results?"
Someone commented that HP thinks it is a bad benchmark, so they won't publish
on it. Now HP has the top result. Changed their tune?
Notice how this is different than when established a World Record TPC-C, Sun told the world the benchmark was too simplistic back then
and is sticking to it? The world became a lot more complicated in the past 7 years
and computing has evolved a lot so we won't go back to something that was created
13 years ago. Sun never quotes 23-year old Dhrystones benchmark anymore either.
The press and analysts are overwhelmingly
seeing TPC-E the successor to the simplistic 14 year-old TPC-C.
IBM's TPC-C "tuning"(?) that won't apply to anything in the real
world
June 2005 Interview with Bruce Lindsay (IBM Fellow) at
http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
"And the good news is that about 40-70% of the stuff we do in
performance tuning actually ends up helping end users."
This means that 30% to 60% of IBM's TPC-C tunings don't help users.
Really beyond the huge disk size of the large TPC-C results (which has a lot to do with the TPC-C being 14 years old),
the quote below points to tuning that is legal but seems a bit too "tricky" for my taste...
"We get down to the level of worrying about the physical column order in the table so the reference columns are near each other, minimizing cache misses during fetching. This is feasible in the TPC-C benchmark because there are only five tables and only ten to fifteen columns in each table. In a more realistic application, where there are many more queries to be considered, the tables are typically much, much wider, in the 80 to 100 column range; and there are dozens if not thousands of tables. Then this kind of analysis is no longer practical." Bruce Linsay, IBM fellow"
For those who may not remember, IBM didn't even end the EOL'ed SPECint_rate2000 on a high note. See:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/rint2000.html and search for "1644" and "1513"
various footnotes:
"It's well-understood in the technical communities that TPC-C no longer represents current customer workloads since the transaction load that its models are made of are small, primitive and disconnected transactions. While this model was acceptable for the workloads of the late 1980s, it misses the mark..." Sun's World Record TPC-C Press release, August2000
Disclosure Statement
TPC-C results referenced above was the fastest overall performance world record at August 31, 2000. Sun Enterprise 10000 server (Starfire) running Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE), 156,873.03 transactions per minute (tpmC), $48.81 price/tpmC, available February 28, 2001. A full disclosure report and executive summary are available through the TPC Web site located at
www.tpc.org.
Monday Mar 19, 2007
The new OLTP database benchmark TPC-E is finally getting more press, it is designed to be much
better than the overly simplistic TPC-C. Here is a sample of the stories today:
http://www.enterprisenetworksandservers.com/newsflash/art.php?707 writes:
"The TPC-E benchmark is the much-anticipated successor to TPC-C, the popular yardstick for comparing On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) performance on various hardware and software configurations. TPC-E defines a sophisticated workload representative of real-world OLTP applications."
http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh031907-story07.html writes:
"TPC-C test, which is a lot more transaction than such a box in the field can usually do. This just goes to show how relatively skinny and simple TPC-C code is."
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/03/19/222516/brokers-offered-new-transactions-testing-standard.htm writes:
"The new standard replaces the outdated TPC-C standard, which does not fully account for the way servers and databases now interact with each other, since processors have become ever more powerful and storage technology has changed."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39286370,00.htm writes:
"...TPC-C dealt with simpler data and operations stored in nine tables that simulated inventory management at a warehouse."
"...TPC-C was widely used for this task — but servers and databases have changed a lot since its debut in July 1992."
"'TPC-C is at the end of its life. It's time for a new benchmark,' said Andreas Hotea, who leads the effort to publicise TPC-E. "
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/03/19/tcp_new_tests/ writes:
"The introduction of a new benchmark is bound to reinvigorate enterprise software and server vendors. For years the innovation reflected in their product strategies has been matched only by the ingenuity they have shown in gaming the TPC's benchmarks, and selectively quoting results in their marketing materials."
Oh, that last one really hit it, we've talked about that a lot in this blog, and show specific
"""ingenuity""" ...what a word.
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ibm_too_tricky_for_good
Monday Mar 12, 2007
Currently TPC-C is not to be replaced by TPC-E, but it should.
TPC-C is really a simplistic database benchmark that is far too old
and simple.
It was reported by Timothy Prickett Morgan last week in
http://www.itjungle.com/breaking/bn030507-story02.html
"While the TPC-C test will soon be replaced by the TPC-E OLTP test, which is designed to address some of the shortcomings of the TPC-C workload and the benchmark methodology"
In my view, TPC-C should be shunned by the industry, joining
Sun's well thought out avoidance of a simplistic benchmark years ago.
We already uncovered IBM's numerous benchmark techniques that took
advantages of the TPC-C benchmarks simplicity.
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ibm_too_tricky_for_good
I'm kinda surprised that people would still cover TPC-C, long ago we gave
up on Dhrystones because of people following the benchmark rules but taking advantages of shortcomings to a high degree...
The article goes on to say:
"nonetheless one of the few independent metrics for assessing the performance of a server"
Actually there are actually a number of
independent workloads to assess server performance by both
TPC and
SPEC committees as well as several other ISV benchmarks such as
SAP.
Monday Feb 26, 2007
The new TPC-E benchmark simulates the OLTP workload of a brokerage firm,
will this work for you? Here is what TPC says...
Although the underlying business model of TPC-E is a brokerage firm, the database schema, data population, transactions, and implementation rules have been designed to be broadly representative of modern OLTP systems.
From looking at the information available so far, seems it will be reasonable.
See a simple comparison to TPC-C at:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/tpc_e_new_oltp_benchmark
Monday Feb 26, 2007
Now that TPC-E is an official benchmark we can look at the public documentation
at http://www.tpc.org/tpce/default.asp to start to compare it with the overly-simplistic TPC-C benchmark.
| Characteristic |
TPC-E |
TPC-C |
| Age: |
New! |
very old: 14 years |
| Benchmark: |
OTLP database |
OTLP database |
| #tables: |
33 |
9 |
| #transaction: |
10 mixed |
5 lightweight |
| hyperoptimize-able?: |
new, too early to tell |
IBM over-optimised |
TPC has seemed to make some headway on this workload. We'll have to see how
useful it is to judging real-world performance. At least this is a step
in the right direction.
More info at www.tpc.org.
Friday Feb 23, 2007
TPC-E is official. I just saw this on www.tpc.org, fantastic! This is great news! Now maybe
we can get past the 14-year old simplistic TPC-C benchmark. If you've been
following this blog for the last 6-7 blog entries
I've been complaining about IBM and how they over-optimised for TPC-C.
TPC-C is way past its prime -- now hopefully TPC-E will pick up the slack and
provide realistic database performance comparisons.
Details seem to be at http://www.tpc.org/tpce/default.asp
Friday Feb 23, 2007
30% to 60% of IBM's tuning on TPC-C does not benefit users. When we see tuning information from the engineers they admit because
TPC-C is simplistic that they can weird tunings. But that is how they
get unbelievable speed. Note these tricks all seem legal and within TPC rules,
but not necessarily useful.
Seems the marketeers really want to make TPC-C sound complex:
IBM Press release:
"In the TPC-C benchmark, measuring the ability of a server to process complex online transactions and large volumes of business data ... "
"TPC-C benchmark is an industry standard for measuring the ability of a system to process complex online transactions and large volumes of business data."
However, TPC-C only does 5 light-weight transactions on 9 tables.
... what is IBM's marketing's credibility?
The industry clearly needs to focus on complex workloads and benchmarks.
Thursday Feb 22, 2007
IBM's TPC-C results not worthy of belief? Lots of unrealistic
optimisations? Sometimes you never know what you find when you start searching the web. After yesterday's posting I started looking. Here is info from June 2005 IBM interview: (who knows what they've done since that doesn't benefit users?)
http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0506/p71-column-winslet.pdf
"And the good news is that about 40-70% of the stuff we do in performance tuning actually ends up helping end users. " Bruce Lindsay, IBM fellow
Ouch! Sun aims for benchmark tuning that end users actually use! Does this
explain IBM's over-inflated TPC-C results?
Q: "Is there any particularly sneaky but still totally legal aspect of
TPC-C tuning that you would like to mention?"
A: "Well, we do things that are very, what should I say? Intense. We get
down to the level of worrying about the physical column order in the
table so the reference columns are near each other, minimizing cache
misses during fetching. This is feasible in the TPC-C benchmark because
there are only five tables and only ten to fifteen columns in each table.
In a more realistic application, where there are many more queries to be
considered, the tables are typically much, much wider, in the 80 to 100
column range; and there are dozens if not thousands of tables. Then
this kind of analysis is no longer practical." Bruce Linsay, IBM fellow
Good reason to make benchmarks messy and change them often. Is this why
IBM hasn't published SPECint_rate2006 because they can't do the above?
We were right with these past postings:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ibm_continues_to_abuse_and
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/selective_vision
...interesting...
Wednesday Feb 21, 2007
OK I've found some on HP's Itanium TPC-C tuning, now to find IBM's info.
HP tired hard to get a good TPC-C but IBM must have done a lot more on TPC-C.
...and this is after IBM did a lot to tune SPECint_rate2000 for Power5+. This covered in http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/judging_by_the_wrong_things.
But clearly HP did a lot on TPC-C, though it seems like you really need to
do a lot at a low level to get good database performance for Itanium2.
Also I'm not buying the comment that Itanium2 was beaten by IBM because the
CPU was not the bottleneck -- HP did lots to improve CPU performance.
...some questions after reading "Squeezing performance out of Itanium":
- Do you have to have a PhD in Chip design and Compiler technology to tune your database?
- no improvement going from 400GB to a 600GB SGA... And 2x improvement going from 600GB -> 1000GB. Lots of expensive memory only pays of when you get near 1TB of memory. The latest TPC-C result by HP prices memory at more than 2.2 Million dollars?
- What about "Out of the Box" performance? -20% without profile feedback optimisation and half the performance without profile and 1TB memory.
Wednesday Feb 21, 2007
How did IBM over-optimize for TPC-C? Seems a good question for this agust
readership. Anyone know what IBM did?
Yesterday's posting, showed some surprise comparisons:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/judging_by_the_wrong_things
...and also yesterday some surprising improvements over time:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ibm_tpc_c_more_hints
Post in the comments, and I'll summarize. Thanks!
Tuesday Feb 20, 2007
Another clue to IBM's over optimisation of TPC-C? Let's look
historically. Since 2002, IBM has speed up SPECint_rate2000 by
6.1x times. Clearly this was due to newer systems, faster GHz, higher
thread count, improved caches, and software improvements.
Funny At same time, IBM increased TPC-C by 10x times. Since these are
the same systems there must be a lot more software work to get this
kind of increase!
In 4-5 years the IBM TPC-C tuning outpaced the SPECint_rate2000 tuning
by 64% ...and this is after 10 years after TPC-C was made public, so there
before 2002 there must have been plenty of time to properly index and
tune a database. Considering all of the compiler work on SPECint_rate2000
seems like IBM went to a lot of extra extra effort on TPC-C.
Somewhat funny, but looking at the post earlier today, it seems like
things are lining up.
The math:
From the IBM p690 ca May 02 to the current IBM p595:
- SPECint_rate2000: 1513 / 249 = 6.1x
- TPC-C tpmC: 4033378 / 403255 = 10.0x
In the last 4-5 years the IBM high-end tpmC has outpaced the
high-end SPECint_rate2000 by
10.0 / 6.1 = 1.64x -> 64%
Disclosure Statements
IBM p5 595 (Power5+ 2.3GHz 64p, 128thread) 4,033,378 tpmC, 2.97 US $/tpmC, Avail 01/22/07, IBM DB2 9, IBM AIX 5L V5.3, Microsoft COM+.
As of May 21, 2002: IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo (1300 MHz, 32 CPU), 403,255.36 tpmC, $19.57/tpmC, available by November 22, 2002.
Results as of 2/15/07, see http://www.tpc.org.
IBM System p5 595 (Power5+ 2.3GHz 64p, 128thread), 64 cores, 32 chips, 2 cores/chip (SMT on), 1513 SPECint_rate2000. IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo
(1300 MHz, 32 CPU) 249 SPECint_rate2000. SPECint_rate2000. SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from http://www.spec.org as of 2/15/07.
Tuesday Feb 20, 2007
Is IBM 3.3x or 1.4x faster? - I guess it depends if you use a
over-optimised benchmark like TPC-C. As mentioned yesterday,
IBM doesn't publish on a variety of standard benchmarks like
SPECint_rate2006 or SPECjbb2005 on their high-end systems so we
have to look at the SPECint_rate2000 which is just about to be EOL'ed
and completely replaced by SPECint_rate2006.
First let's compare an IBM p5 595 (Power5+ 2.3GHz 64p, 128thread) to
a HP Integrity Superdome (Itanium2 1.6 GHz 64p, 64thread, single core/CPU)
on SPECint_rate2000.
Constructing a SPECint_rate2000 ratio
1.4x = 1513/1108
we find that the IBM 595 is 1.4x faster, it makes sense because this
isn't the latest HP dual-core Itanium2. Both IBM and HP systems have
results on TPC-C U SPECint_rate2000.
OK now using TPC-C, let's compare a IBM p5 595 (Power5+ 2.3GHz 64p,
128thread) to a HP Integrity Superdome
(Itanium2 1.6 GHz 64p, 64thread, single core/CPU).
Constructing a TPC-C ratio
3.3x = 4033378/1231433
what?
comparing the same systems the IBM is 3.3x faster ?!?
Looks that TPC-C over-inflates what can be expected from IBM.
My guess is IBM over-optimised and played lots of tuning tricks
on TPC-C, correct? So is TPC-C relavent to customers if this
is the case?
...maybe that's why seven years ago Sun, upon publishing a world
record TPC-C result said:
"It's well-understood in the technical communities that TPC-C no longer
represents current customer workloads since the transaction load that
its models are made of are small, primitive and disconnected transactions.
While this model was acceptable for the workloads of the late 1980s, it
misses the mark..."
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-08/sunflash.20000831.1.html
You'll also notice the Aug 2000 press release said, "Customer workloads
nowadays require a more ad hoc workload than the TPC-C specifies."
Disclosure Statements
IBM p5 595 (Power5+ 2.3GHz 64p, 128thread) 4,033,378 tpmC,
2.97 US $/tpmC, Avail 01/22/07, IBM DB2 9, IBM AIX 5L V5.3, Microsoft COM+.
HP Integrity Superdome (Itanium2 1.6 GHz 64p, 64thread), 1,231,433 tpmC,
4.82 US $/tpmC, Avail 06/05/06, Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edt SP1,
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Ed.(64-bit)SP1. Results as of
2/15/07, see http://www.tpc.org.
IBM System p5 595 (Power5+ 2.3GHz 64p, 128thread), 64 cores, 32 chips,
2 cores/chip (SMT on), 1513 SPECint_rate2000. HP Integrity Superdome
(Itanium2 1.6 GHz 64p, 64thread, 16 cells), 64 cores, 64 chips,
1 core/chip, 1108 SPECint_rate2000. SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp reg tm of
Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from http://www.spec.org. as of 2/15/07.
World record TPC-C results referenced above was an overall performance
world record at August 31, 2000. Sun Enterprise 10000 server (Starfire)
running Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE), 156,873.03 tpmC, $48.81 price/tpmC, available February 28, 2001. A full disclosure report and executive summary are available through the TPC Web site located at
http://www.tpc.org.
|
|
|
|
Oh boy you make me laugh with all the crap that yo...