Friday Jan 16, 2009
Here us an upated table of power-performance benchmarks, trying to hightlight easy to measure watts on many different standard benchmarks.
I put the number of published benchmarks that show watt-performance for Sun and use
"0" zero for those that have ZERO information on the measured watts used during the benchmark. What is behind this stonewall of red?
It is really funny that some vendors avoid showing easy-to-measure power on performance benchmarks with real configurations. Is it that they have only have a advantage on special configurations?
Power-Performance Benchmarks
| Benchmarks |
Sun |
IBM |
HP |
Dell |
Unisys |
| SPECweb/other-web |
Yes 6/1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| SPECjbb |
Yes: 5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| SPECjAppServer |
Yes: 5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| SPECmail |
Yes: 2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| SPEComp |
Yes: 2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Lotus Domino iNotes |
Yes: 3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Oracle's Siebel CRM 8.0 |
Yes: 2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| VMmark |
Yes: 2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| MySQL |
Yes: 1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| ERP (CDA/NDA needed) |
Yes: 3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| SPECpower |
SPECpower
Issues |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
0 |
Note customers can get "ERP" power data from Sun under CDA/NDA agreement, as some SW vendors do not allow public display of wattage data measured during the benchmark.
Want more details on Sun's published measured watts, last week I posted "Sun's 2008 summary of measured watts & watt/performance": http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/sun_s_2008_summary_of
Some other thoughts for those really interested in saving real energy:
- Power-management software should be on by default or NOT ALLOWED IN BENCHMARKS!
- Increase server utilisation to most effectively reduce power consumed! Servers are very very inefficient at low-utilisation!
- look at watt-performance NOT perf/watt when comparing servers!
- replace incandescents with CFL lights.
Disclosure Statement:
SPEC, SPECweb, SPECjbb, SPECjAppServer, SPEComp, and SPECpower benchmark name are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.
VMware(R) VMmark(R) is a product of VMware, an EMC Company.
Oracle, Siebel, registered trademarks of Oracle Corporation and/or its affiliates. More info www.oracle.com/apps_benchmark/html/white-papers-siebel.html
NotesBench R6iNotes More info: www.notesbench.org
Tuesday Jan 13, 2009
Sun's state-of-the-art datacenter in Santa Clara, California, has attracted more than 2,000 visitors from 350 customers. The big draw: power usage effectiveness, or PUE. The center delivers a PUE of 1.28. That means 78 percent of the power goes to the actual compute equipment (up from as low as 25 percent in the worst case). "That's a huge jump," says Dean Nelson. "We shed a half a megawatt of required power and we shed $400,000 a year in utilities.
Do you want to read how Sun did it? Here is the link to download:
http://wikis.sun.com/display/BluePrints/Energy+Efficient+Datacenters+-+The+Role+of+Modularity+in+Datacenter+Design
"Energy Efficient Datacenters: The Role of Modularity in Datacenter Design"
by Dean Nelson, Michael Ryan, Serena DeVito, Ramesh KV, Petr Vlasaty, Brett Rucker, and Brian Day (June, 2008)
Monday Jun 23, 2008
Last friday I blogged about an article on Duke University's Larrick & Soll's research:
Posting a vehicle’s fuel efficiency in “gallons per mile” (GPM) rather than “miles per gallon” (MPG) would help consumers make better decisions about car purchases and environmental impact, researchers from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business report in the June 20 issue of Science magazine.
The main issue is that people usually make comparisons by linear improvement in miles/gallon, but this leads most to errors. Switching to gallons/mile (and as
I said for servers watt/performance) avoids these problems.
If one does the calculations correctly of course it doesn't matter, but on a quick look one can be mislead. For example, (do this quickly!) if one climbs
10 miles a hill and gets 10mpg and then coasts down the hill for 10 miles getting 100 mpg, how many mpg does one average? If you didn't come up with an answer of
18mpg (or nearly double the uphill rate), then you should consider looking at the reciprocal calculation.
If on that same hill that same car gets 1 gal/10 miles (10mpg) uphill and 0.1gal/10miles (100mpg), then it is easy to that coasting downhill can only come close doubling your fuel efficiency. Even if you doubled your fuel efficiency on the downhill section to 200mpg (0.05gal/10 miiles) you can see that your average fuel efficiency doesn't change much.
As I've said before on servers it is also critical to understand watt/performance on a wide variety of benchmarks, Sun understands this. This way you avoid benchmarks were vendors only highlight small-memory and low-GHz configurations.
Finally increase your server utilisation (even a small amount) and closely look at power-performance (watt/perf).
Wednesday Jun 11, 2008
Thick versus Thin Clients: Today online at 4PM(east)/1PM(pac) there will be a debate to discuss the energy use and TCO of a thin client model versus their thicker alternatives. See: http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2008/06/ecotechnology_great_debates_at.php
I'm sure the "think thin" will have followup thoughts on this afterwards at: blogs.sun.com/ThinkThin
Desktop systems have a very different usage model (for most people's work environment they are mostly IDLE or very low utilisation), so thin usually wins. Servers are a different beast and you really want to run fewer servers at high utilisation)
Monday Jun 09, 2008
A posting last week, clearly demonstrated that even small increases in utilisations provide HUGE savings".
Then I started looking at the data, it seems that one only really needs two points(!) {active-idle & 100%) to determine the watts used at any utilisation. Let's take a look at the HP DL580 SPECpower_ssj result.
| %util | Measured
Watts | Linear
Predict | watts
diff | %Diff |
| 100% | 387w | - | - | 0% |
| 90% | 376w | 375.4w | 0.6w | 0% |
| 80% | 368w | 363.8w | 4.2w | 1% |
| 70% | 359w | 352.2w | 6.8w | 2% |
| 60% | 347w | 340.6w | 6.4w | 2% |
| 50% | 335w | 329w | 6w | 2% |
| 40% | 322w | 317.4w | 4.6w | 1% |
| 30% | 309w | 305.8w | 3.2w | 1% |
| 20% | 294w | 294.2w | -0.2w | 0% |
| 10% | 280w | 282.6w | -2.6w | -1% |
| idle | 271w | - | - | 0% |
I'll look at more at at other SPECpower_ssj results. But it seems that SPEC should just simply add idle watts and wattage measurements at 100% utilisation to ALL SPEC benchmarks and not redesign benchmarks to measure watts at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. In the worst case, above the linear prediction was ONLY 2% different than actual watts!
I have long said SPEC should just at watt/perf to all of their benchmarks as currently designed.
Disclosure statement
SPECpower_ssj2008:HP Proliant DL580 G5 (4-chip QC Xeon L7345 1.86GHz), 546 overall ssj_ops/watt,
359,523 ssj_ops and 387 watt at 100% target load,
325,931 ssj_ops and 376 watt at 90% target load,
291,991 ssj_ops and 368 watt at 80% target load,
255,512 ssj_ops and 359 watt at 70% target load,
217,222 ssj_ops and 347 watt at 60% target load,
180,262 ssj_ops and 335 watt at 50% target load,
145,079 ssj_ops and 322 watt at 40% target load,
110,173 ssj_ops and 309 watt at 30% target load,
71,409 ssj_ops and 294 watt at 20% target load,
36,070 ssj_ops and 280 watt at 10% target load, and Active Idle 271 watts.
SPEC, SPECpower reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.
Results from www.spec.org as of 12/11/07.
In a more realistic configuration the HP DL580 G5, from HP's own power calculators, a HP DL580 G5 with four QC Xeon 2.93GHz Tigerton and 64 GB memory should draw 1,072watts. HP DL580 power consumption from HP Power Calculator system configured with 4 x2.93GHz processors, redundant PSU, 16 x 4GB DIMMs, 8 x 36GB SAS drives,1 x PCI card, 80% utilisation on 9/10/07: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/powercalcs.asp
Wednesday Jun 04, 2008
Servers are very different than laptops, DUH! Therefore one must benchmark power
in a very different way. We all know that laptops spend lots of time
at low utilisation or idle (waiting for your input). Most servers
should not be used at idle or anywhere near idle. Kick out any vendor
that only wants to show watt savings at low utilisation, they are trying to
get you to take your eye of the real truth.
In the good ol' wasteful days of yore, you could have your servers running at 20%, drive your huge SUV alone down the block to pick up buy an incandescent bulbs.
Today, you need to lower your costs and carbon footprint by turning off wasteful low-utilised servers, buying efficient servers and running them in at least an efficient part of the power curve, say 50-60% util or more.
Demand that every vendor add power measurement to every benchmark right now!
I fear many are redesigning benchmarks to add power only to emphasize low utilisation. In my opinion (I speak for myself not necessarily Sun), low utilisation measurements are just smoke and mirrors and disinformation. As I pointed out last week you can save many times more watts per unit of work by just raising your utilisation a bit.
Why do I mention this which appears obvious...
This morning I had breakfast with a friend. Always enjoyable catching up with friends. He mentioned that a customer of his wanted to make buying power decisions "based on the idle watts of a server"!?! The customer was prompted to ask that by a vendor. After a realistic conversation continued the customer now feels completely mislead by the other vendor. , you lost.
Now off to a tasty lunch...
Friday May 30, 2008
The SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark goes out of its way to measure servers at low-utilisation (5 of 11 datapoints are in the wasteful active-idle to 40% range - the worst range for servers). SPECpower_ssj actually shows this. Customers needs to demand that power measured on all benchmarks, now.
Let's look at HP DL580 G5 4-socket (for SPECpower_ssj2008 HP only used the low-GHz 1.86GHz Xeon, tiny 16 GB with special DIMMs, and a hacked non-standard BIOS). Regardless it can still be used to prove my point.
Increasing utilisation even a small amount provides HUGE improvements in watts-per-unit-of-work. Increasing utilisation a tiny 10% improve your watt/work an amazing 33-163% ! If you increase utilisation more you save even more:
| %Util Improvement | Savings in watts-per-unit-of-work |
| 10 | 33-163% |
| 20 | 45-257% |
| 30 | 62-353% |
<| 40 | 84-437% |
| 50 | 114-511% |
| higher% | even more! |
The biggest savings occur when you stop running at low utilisation.
We need to do everything we can to discourage low-utilisation!
The first column, in the table below, is the %utilisation you start at, the rows than show you the %savings if you increase your utilisation. So for example if you were at 20% utilisation (2nd row from the bottom) and increase the %utilisation to 40% (3rd column from the right) you save 140% per unit of work!
| %u | Perf/Power | 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | 50% | 40% | 30% | 20% |
| 100% | 929 | | | | | | | | | |
| 90% | 867 | 33% | | | | | | | | |
| 80% | 793 | 45% | 35% | | | | | | | |
| 70% | 712 | 62% | 50% | 37% | | | | | | |
| 60% | 626 | 84% | 71% | 56% | 41% | | | | | |
| 50% | 538 | 114% | 99% | 82% | 64% | 46% | | | | |
| 40% | 451 | 155% | 138% | 117% | 96% | 75% | 54% | | | |
| 30% | 357 | 223% | 200% | 174% | 148% | 121% | 94% | 64% | | |
| 20% | 243 | 374% | 341% | 303% | 264% | 224% | 185% | 140% | 89% | |
| 10% | 129 | 793% | 731% | 659% | 586% | 511% | 437% | 353% | 257% | 163%
| |
IBM bloggers accuse me of many things. LET ME BE CLEAR: These are my personal opinions and NOT the opinions of Sun. This blog is NOT the source for official opinions.
Disclosure statement
SPECpower_ssj2008:HP Proliant DL580 G5 (4-chip QC Xeon L7345 1.86GHz), 546 overall ssj_ops/watt,
359,523 ssj_ops and 387 watt at 100% target load,
325,931 ssj_ops and 376 watt at 90% target load,
291,991 ssj_ops and 368 watt at 80% target load,
255,512 ssj_ops and 359 watt at 70% target load,
217,222 ssj_ops and 347 watt at 60% target load,
180,262 ssj_ops and 335 watt at 50% target load,
145,079 ssj_ops and 322 watt at 40% target load,
110,173 ssj_ops and 309 watt at 30% target load,
71,409 ssj_ops and 294 watt at 20% target load,
36,070 ssj_ops and 280 watt at 10% target load, and Active Idle 271 watts.
SPEC, SPECpower reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.
Results from www.spec.org as of 12/11/07.
In a more realistic configuration the HP DL580 G5, from HP's own power calculators, a HP DL580 G5 with four QC Xeon 2.93GHz Tigerton and 64 GB memory should draw 1,072watts. HP DL580 power consumption from HP Power Calculator system configured with 4 x2.93GHz processors, redundant PSU, 16 x 4GB DIMMs, 8 x 36GB SAS drives,1 x PCI card, 80% utilisation on 9/10/07: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/powercalcs.asp
Wednesday May 21, 2008
Watts used during VMware's VMmark benchmark are now shown on the official VMware blog at: blogs.vmware.com/performance/2008/05/sun-uses-vmmark.html. It also shows a graph of the wattage data.
Other information on this workload was reported on this blog at:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/vmmark_performance_watt_performance
Friday May 16, 2008
Sun has shown watts on UltraSPARC for years!:
2008: UltraSPARC T2+
2007: UltraSPARC T2
2005: UltraSPARC T1 & T2000 blogs with power-performance
Sun is now showing measured watts with measured performance for X64 servers as well, the rumor mill inside Sun is saying we are going see a lot more soon:
2008: X64 Virtualization
2008: X64 Java
Real measured watts on a variety of workloads is critical to truly inform customers.
Wednesday Jan 16, 2008
IBM is still actively trying to confuse customers with core count.
Remember the internal structure (read "core") is NOT important. What is
important is system-to-system comparison.
People buy systems, put workloads on them, and measure performance. No one cares
how many widgets are inside the system! If the faster system is a lower-cost
fewer chip system - all the better! This is the reason why many customers are switching
from POWER6 systems to buy Sun's US T2 systems. No one cares that IBM has 4 widgets
buried inside that expensive IBM box.
It is system perf, system $/perf, system watt/perf, -- it
is not a system's core-count!
IBM continues to withhold actual POWER6 power measurements on actual
SPEC benchmarks. It is so easy to hook up a power meter to systems
under test on a benchmark. Is IBM scared of the truth?
In the mean time, Sun will continue to do good faith estimates of
32GB and 64GB POWER6 systems. Sun never uses book maximums or
nameplate maximums, we make allowances (which by the way, are correct
whenever we measure on competitive systems). If Sun is so wrong
why doesn't IBM publish actual data?
...And please make it on Power6 systems
with 32GB-64GB and 4.7GHz only, just like the systems IBM uses on
performance benchmarks.
Here's Sun's data compared to IBM on perf, watt/perf:
Wednesday Jan 09, 2008
It is so easy to measure you wonder why some vendors hide their wattages.
Sun as US T2:
2007: UltraSPARC T2
2005: UltraSPARC T1 & T2000 blogs with power-performance
The only thing I can think of is that the numbers are embarrassing in
real configurations.
I a previous posting I mentioned that HP configurations used in other benchmarks have reasonable sized memory:
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)
Looking around at HP's own power calculators we find that an
HP DL580 G5 with four QC Xeon 2.93GHz Tigerton and 64 GB memory
should draw 1,072watts but how much does is actually draw?
We carefully measured one in our lab running database workloads at
60-80% util at just above 800watts. Fair, NO gaming. It is so easy to
do this right, try it yourself.
Note:HP configures 1200w supplies with their 4 Xeon QC DL580 G5. Everyone
knows that even with efficient power supplies you
design near the rating so that you keep the costs down and keep the
efficiency up. An engineer would be a bit daft to put a 1200w supply on a
server they expect to draw only 300watts! 
HP DL580 G5 power consumption from HP Power Calculator system configured with 4 x2.93GHz processors, redundant PSU, 16 x 4GB DIMMs, two GbE, four 146GB SAS disks, two PCI-E Dual-Port FC, 80% utilisation on 1/8/07: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/powercalcs.asp
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.
Tuesday Dec 18, 2007
A new SPEC benchmark called SPECpower_ssj2008 was announced last week..
I've taken a little time to look at the new results and benchmark rules.
Quite simply, I don't know why SPEC didn't add power measurement
to every benchmark. It is quite easy to add rules that
puts one SUT (system under test) on a power meter and a few rules
to accurately measure power. That should have been done months ago,
it is so much easier than creating a new benchmark.
So why didn't SPEC do this? I have no idea. I can only guess some
vendors to show off their power-management software at different utilisation
levels. As we've talked about here for a very long time, running servers at low-utilisation (below 50% utilisation) is the worst way in the world to waste power... Even with the most extreme power-saving HW/SW.
With a different benchmark only for power-benchmarking it is really possible
to game results. Did anyone?
- HP submitted a SPECpower_ssj2008 on the DL 580 G5 QC Xeon. Cool
now we can see what the DL580 G5 does. But HP PICKED 1.86GHz Xeon L7345 for
SPECpower_ssj and a very DIFFERENT processor (2.9GHz Xeon) for performance on SPECweb2005, well at least they are not confusing things...
- HP's DL 580 G5 SPECpower_ssj2008 documentation does NOT EVEN mention processor GHz or type!
Why?
- The only SPECpower_ssj2008 results were on 4GB, 8GB, 16GB configs.
Memory is a huge power draw. So why configure such small systems for power?
Why do these vendors use 32GB and 64GB configs on performance benchmarks?
- The HP DL580 G5 used one 60GB 5400 RPM SATA drive. My laptop has better
- HP's DL580 G5 Power supplies used are 2x1200 watts. The 1.86GHz
Xeon DL580 G5 draws 387 watts at 100% on SPECpower_ssj2008.
Since all vendors know that you use power supplies near their rating
for best energy efficiency, why does HP not sell properly-size power supplies?
Maybe because HP typically expects to sell configurations that are different
than SPECpower_ssj2008 DL580 configs?
- Is running at low utilisation efficient? SIMPLE answer NO!
Let's look at SPECpower-ssj2008 HP DL580 G5. Comparing 70% utilisation
with 20% utilisation we see that one wastes 3 TIMES more watts for the
same amount of work at 20% utilization than at 70% utilization!!! 3 = round(2.93) = (294w/71409ssj_ops) / (359w/255512ssj_ops)
- SPECpower_ssj allows default BIOS settings to be changed to make better
results by turning off prefetch (also see SPECjbb & prefetch) - yeah, right, every customer does that
get real.
So what serves the industry? Using the same configurations that you
benchmark for performance and power-performance.
Sun does this and has been doing this for years:
2007: UltraSPARC T2
2005: UltraSPARC T1 & T2000 blogs with power-performance
The only thing I really can take away from SPECpower_ssj2008 is that running at low utilization is silly, read carefully, and avoid silly configurations.
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.
SPECpower_ssj2008: Colfax CX2266-N2 (2-chip AMD Opteron DC 2216HE 2.4GHz), 203 overall ssj_ops/watt. SPEC, SPECpower reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.
Results from www.spec.org as of 12/11/07.
HP ProLiant DL580 G5 (16 cores, 4 chips) 30261 SPECweb2005. SPEC, SPECweb reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of Oct 8, 2007.
HP DL580 power consumption from HP Power Calculator system configured with 4 x2.93GHz processors, redundant PSU, 16 x 4GB DIMMs, 8 x 36GB SAS drives,1 x PCI card, 80% utilisation on 9/10/07: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/powercalcs.asp HP DL385G2 power consumption from HP Power Calculator for system configured with 2 x AMD 2220 2.8GHz processors, redundant PSU, 8 x 4GB DIMMs, 2 x HBAs and 2 x 146GB SAS drives, 80% utilisation on 6/4/07: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/powercalcs.asp
Monday Oct 01, 2007
Topics such as space and power/cooling,that we write about here, are truly important for datacentres. The article below covers a survey by ONStor (a network attached storage company).
"ONStor Green Data Center survey reveals 63% of organizations have run out of space, power, or cooling capacity without warning
read more at:
http://www.byteandswitch.com/document.asp?doc_id=134163
Friday Sep 28, 2007
Large memory is used on many of the standard benchmarks on systems using Xeon, Opteron,
and IBM Power. Actually this is fine, Sun systems can and do use large memory as well.
However, given the fact that memory can draw much more power than CPUs and that every system implementation is different (memory types: DDR2, FB-Dimms, very different ASICs) we really need power to be measured at these memory configurations. I have seen to many wattages only specifying TDP of a single processor, and far too many system wattage claims based on 2GB or 4GB of low-speed memory. We need the vendors to specify measured system wattages on configurations that they benchmark.
Price. Another common thing done by many vendors is to show the online prices for slow GHz and small memory configurations as their starting price. If you look at getting the latest GHz CPU and memory sizes like listed below, I've seen prices explode to 4 times to 10 times more than their starting price! Dear.
This suggests we should really list systems by memory size first and then processor count.
Processor count is mattering less than memory size for watts & price.
SPECweb2005:
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)
SAP-SD 2-Tier ECC6.0:
48GB: HP rx6600 (4 dual-core Itanium2 1.6GHz)
32GB: HP DL380 (2 quad-core Xeon 3GHz)
32GB: HP BL685c (4 dual-core Opteron 3GHz)
32GB: HP BL460c (2 quad-core Xeon 3GHz)
32GB: IBM p570 (2 dual-core Power6 4.7GHz)
SPECjbb2005:
32GB: Dell PE6950 (4 dual-core Opteron 2.8GHz)
SPECjAppServer2004:
32GB: HP rx6600 (4 dual-core Itanium2 1.6GHz)
Lotus:
32GB: IBM p550Q (2 quad-core Power5+ 1.5GHz)
Disclosure Statement (all data as of Sept 27, 2007)
SPEC, SPECjbb, SPECjAppServer, SPECweb, reg tm of
Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation, Info on www.spec.org.
NotesBench Domino[R] R6iNotes, more info www.notesbench.org.
Two-tier SAP Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) standard
SAP ERP 2004/2005 application benchmark: SAP, R/3, mySAP reg TM of
SAP AG in Germany and other countries. More info www.sap.com/benchmark.
|
|
|
|
I've heard internally that this is a "duh&quo...
Yeah, we also noticed this. But it only applies fo...
hmmm... so the additional utilisation levels ...
I'm not on any SPEC committees, so I didn't do any...
You can't draw any conclusions from the publi...
I went through all of the data even with "ext...
Wes: sorry I put "you" but you used...