UltraSPARC T2 vs. Power6 - today: Siebel CRM

I'm a member of

Quicksearch

Codenews Search

Disclaimer

The individual owning this blog works for Oracle in Germany. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.

Navigation

< SamFS at home? | HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray >

UltraSPARC T2 vs. Power6 - today: Siebel CRM

Tuesday, January 8. 2008

Siebel is one of the epidemic applications in the enterprise. Look in any company of a certain size and you find Siebel or a similar application. Customer Relationship Management was one of the big hype topics a few years ago. Thus benchmarks for this application are really important for server vendors.

When you dig around in the benchmark whitepapers for Siebel, you will find a really interesting gem of information: You can outperform three IBM p570 p6 4,7 GHz with two Sun Sparc Enterprise T5120 and two T5220.

According to the the benchmarking document from Oracle and IBM a configuration consisting out of one 8-proc p570, one 4-proc p570 and one 2-proc p570 was benchmarked. This configuration was able to serve 7000 users with a rate of 106,157 business transactions per hour. A few days ago Oracle certified the benchmark for our UltraSPARC T2 base servers. According to this document, a configuration consisting out of 4 systems with one UltraSPARC T2 each was able to serve 10000 users with a rate of 142,061 business transactions per hour.

I want to add some perspective to this result: The result is especially interesting, as the IBM Power6 based configuration is vastly more expensive than the one based on UltraSPARC T2. The capabilties of the T2 are really amazing.

Posted by Joerg Moellenkamp in English, Sun/Oracle at 19:03 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Defined tags for this entry: ibm

, oracle

, power6

, siebel

, solaris

, sun

Related entries by tags:

View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Joerg,

is IBM giving up? They announced Solaris for all their plattforms, just announced that they are restructuring their whole server-business? What is going on?

Pw

#1 Pw on 2008-01-08 23:40 (Reply)

You can even outperform a 8-core XEON machine with one T5120 using Java. Done with a medium size XSLT workload. Using 8(single threaded) Xalan 2.7.0 processes on the XEON and 8 (8 threads per process) Xalan 2.7.0 processes on the T5120 (giving 64 threads in total).

Though that might not surprise you - i was really excited about that result.

#2 Jens Kleemann on 2008-01-09 08:52 (Reply)

I doesn´t surprise me, with many workloads the UltraSPARC Tx series runs fast as hell. But i´m really exited as well about your findings. The VF series will be much better. Think about a quad-proc VF for example ...

#2.1 Joerg+M. (Homepage) on 2008-01-09 09:07 (Reply)

I am eager to get my hands on that on or a rock based machine. The last tests i did on a T2000 (US T1) where ok but a quad core octeron with solaris was definitely faster (xslt xalan workloads). The scaling were also interesting:

T2000 (8 cores, 32 threads):
bounding of javaVM to cores were necessary to get the maximum throughput

T5120 (8 cores, 64 threads):
makes no real difference if you bound the VMs to cores or not ... amazing how well solaris scheduling works

I am still unsure about the reasons, maybe the FPU limitation ?

I am still testing and will (hopefully) present the results at a BOF at the JavaOne...(in comparison of US T1, US T2, Opterons, Xeons) for various workloads....(xslt being one of them, J2EE definitively not ... i find J2EE rather boring).

#2.1.1 Jens Kleemann on 2008-01-09 18:09 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_.
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry