Quicksearch
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.
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.
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)
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
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
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
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.
Though that might not surprise you - i was really excited about that result.
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 ... 
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).
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).
+1
The LKSF book
The book with the consolidated Less known Solaris Tutorials is available for download here
Web 2.0
Contact
Networking
xing.com
LinkedIn
Facebook
My photos
- mail: joerg@c0t0d0s0.org
- icq: 144000169
- Me, myself and I
- openBC
- My del.icio.us
- c0t0d0s0@twitter
- c0t0d0s0@last.fm
- wiki@c0t0d0s0
- Amazon Wishlist
Networking
xing.com
My photos
Buttons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany License
Blog Administration
Donate
Okay, okay ... as several people have asked for it ... but you know my opinion.