Moonshot vs. Metrics

Some of you may know that last week I was on some college visits. I love this time of info sessions, tours, cafeterias, classrooms, and dorms. I even got to stay in a real dorm one night. Funny, it was not any dorm I had ever been in, not at a college that I had ever been at, and not even a section of a city I had ever been to – but the cooking smells brought me right back to senior year.

Anyway, one thing I’ve noticed with these visits is how important statistics are. At first I was so tired of asking/hearing the same questions on metrics. I mean, isn’t it the feel of the campus that matters? But I found that the really key questions are ones like these: What percent of freshmen live in dorms, what is the student to professor ratio, what is the placement rate 6 months after graduation in the field of study? The answers to these questions which are backed by real data really matter because in the end that’s what the big bucks are paying for.

I’ve been feeling that way this week as I look at some of the latest IT news. I see Moonshot claims, backed by “internal HP engineering.” I see Fujitsu M10 and Oracle faster performance claims that don’t even go that far. If I don’t have any data maybe if I don’t include a footnote nobody will notice.

Meanwhile, IBM this week published a new #1 SAP Sales and Distribution 3-tier benchmark result. 266K users, over 1.4M SAPS, over 29M line items per hour, over 88M dialog steps per hour, on the POWER7+ IBM Power 780 with DB2 10.5.(1) With more metrics available than you probably even want to know about.

I hope HP’s alternative thinking with Moonshot was referring to the United States Apollo program — and not the abortive Soviet moonshot or the defunct beer with caffeine.

************************************************
(1)IBM Power 780 three-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark on SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0 achieved 266,000 SAP SD benchmark users. Configuration: 8 processors / 64 cores / 256 threads, POWER7+ 3.72 GHz, 512 GB memory, running AIX 7.1, DB2® 10.5; dialog resp.: 0.84s, line items/hour: 29,433,670, dialog steps/hour: 88,301,000, SAPS: 1,471,680, DB time (dialog/ update): .036s/.061s, DB CPU utilization: 97%, average application server CPU utilization: 88%. Certification #2013010.
Source: http://www.sap.com. Results current as of 4/10/13.

SAP, mySAP and other SAP product and service names mentioned herein as well as their respective
logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries all
over the world.

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance,SAP,SD,3-tier,Moonshot,HP,Oracle,SPARC,engineered,T5,POWER7+,780,storage,DB2,benchmark,benchmarking

Life in the Fast Lane

I recently wrote about a college visit — Big Data, Performance, and Coconut Smoothies might as well be titled Big Data at the Big Ten. And the ability to collect, measure, and analyze this massive flood of data for meaningful insights requires important non-functional IT requirements like reliability, availability, security, and of course performance.

The IBM announcement of new products and offerings today leverages cloud to improve efficiency, focuses on data to deliver more actionable insight, and secures this critical data to protect and reduce risk. It’s Cloud Ready, Data Ready, Security Ready. And, of course, Performance Ready with:

• New #1 Power Systems benchmarks for the new POWER7+ systems across a wide portfolio of applications including SAP, Java, and Technical Computing. Read about them here.
• All the benchmarks and rPerf data in the performance report here.
• Proof points like this one: The new 48-core IBM Power 760 with DB2 10 achieved the best 48-core two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark result, surpassing the 80-core HP DL980. (1)
• Performance details on the new POWER7+ systems including Power 730, Power 740, Power 750, Power 760, PowerLinux 7R2.
• Leadership Storage performance including performance enhancements to IBM XIV. New caching algorithms increase performance compared to previous models up to 4.5 times for random and 5 times for sequential database workloads.

One thing that struck me on this college visit (besides how young everyone looks) is how college truly is an exciting new beginning. Everything is shining, brand spanking new. But this doesn’t only have to happen in college. There are frequently new beginnings throughout life.

Years ago, when social media was a relatively new concept for many of us, my manager at the time (who was always a source of exciting, new, and crazy ideas) “suggested” that I consider writing something called a blog. A downright scary idea, I implemented it anyway.

This week, this esteemed manager, colleague, mentor, associate is retiring after a very successful career of exciting ideas. To start a new beginning in the fast lane. And I will miss his inspiration. And his crazy ideas. Like a blog.

************************************************

(1)The 48-core IBM Power 760 (3.41 GHz) achieved the best 48-core two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark result running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors / 48 cores / 192 threads, POWER7+, 1024 GB memory, 25,488 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10, dialog resp.: 0.99s, line items/hour: 2,784,330, Dialog steps/hour: 8,353,000 SAPS: 139,220, DB time (dialog/ update): .009s/.015s, CPU utilization: 99%, Certification #2013004. vs. HP DL980 G7, Xeon, SQL Server 2008, 25,160 users, 8 processors/80 cores/160 threads, SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0, Certification # 2011021. http://www.sap.com. Results current as of 2/5/13.

SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance,SAP,SD,SPEC,SPECjbb,Linpack,SPECfp,POWER7+,

SPECint,760,DB2,740,730,750,Power,benchmark,storage,benchmarking

A Tale of IBM Great Expectations

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . . .”

Let’s look at the worst first.

Last week HP announced new Itanium servers. But don’t get too excited. Were there industry standard benchmarks announced in the press release? — No, just “internal lab testing.”

Last week I was meeting with some IT Analysts. They told me how disappointed they were with a certain vendor. “We’ll probably never see an Exadata benchmark.”

Now for the best.

Yesterday IBM once again was a leader in the TOP500 list of supercomputers with:

• Most systems in TOP500 with 193. HP had 148. Oracle had 6.
• Most installed aggregate throughput with over 66.2 out of 162 Petaflops. IBM has had this lead for an amazing 27 lists in a row.
• Most in TOP 10 with 6.
• Fastest Intel based system.
• 26 of 30 most energy-efficient systems.

And today, IBM announced new Flex technologies for IBM PureSystems, including POWER7+ compute nodes. And there were benchmarks. Amazing benchmarks, including the IBM PureSystems #1 result on the SAP SD 2-tier 16-core benchmark. (1)

“Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There’s no better rule.”

“It was the age of wisdom . . . we had everything before us . . .”

************************************************

(1) IBM Flex System p260 Compute Node, 2 processors / 16 cores / 64 threads, IBM POWER7+, 4.10 GHz, 32 KB (I) and 32 KB (D) L1 cache and 256 KB L2 cache per core, 10 MB L3 cache per core, 256 GB main memory. Number of SAP SD benchmark users: 10,000, Average dialog response time: 0.97 seconds, Fully processed order line items/hour: 1,094,000, Dialog steps/hour: 3,282,000, SAPS:54,700, Average database request time (dialog/update):0.010 sec / 0.017 sec, CPU utilization of central server:99%, Operating system, central server:AIX 7.1, RDBMS:DB2 10, SAP Business Suite software:SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0, Certification number: 2012035; http://www.sap.com.

Results current as of 11/13/12.

SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance,POWER7+,Pure,Flex,Power,PureSystems,benchmark,SAP,SPECjbb,p260,SPECcpu,

SPEComp,HP,Oracle,Exadata,Itanium,Superdome,benchmarking

Cloud and Data and Security, Oh My

Cloud Ready. Data Ready. Security Ready. With outstanding performance.

Important themes for the Smarter Computing announcements today.

The new offerings include:
1) the most powerful enterprise Power Systems to date, POWER7+ systems,
2) a new high-end disk storage system, the DS8870, and
3) key software for the IBM zEnterprise EC12.

• Read the press release.
• Analyze the new POWER7+ #1 Benchmarks on the Power 770 and Power 780 — Java, SAP, and High Performance Computing.
• Peruse the Power Systems performance report with new rPerf data.
• Take a look at the brand new #1 DS8870 SPC-2 storage benchmark.(1)

These new technologies are designed to help organizations improve security, take advantage of cloud computing, and manage and analyze the vast amounts of big data in our world today.

************************************************

(1) ) Storage Performance Council, “SPC Benchmark 2™ Full Disclosure Report IBM Corporation, IBM System Storage DS8870,” October 2012. Source: http://www.storageperformance.org/results/benchmark_results_spc2. SPC Benchmark-1 and SPC Benchmark-2 are trademarks of the Storage Performance Council.

SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance,POWER7+,770,780,Power,DS8870,benchmark,EC12,zEnterprise,SPC-2,SPEC,SPECjbb2005,SPECint,SPECfp,SPECompL,SAP,Linpack,benchmarking

Click Here for 10 Million: IBM vs. Exadata Redux

For a few minutes this morning I thought that I might win 10 million dollars. I had already envisioned inviting Larry Ellison for tea at my second home in the Cayman Islands. I had already reveled in the joy that these funds would bring to the non-profits I support.

And then I read the contest rules.

Oracle is once again sponsoring a contest that is advertised on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. A contest where Oracle claims that if an Exadata Data Warehouse system is not “5x faster” than a Power 795 Data Warehouse system, you win 10 million. Let’s take a look at the official rules to help you decide if you should enter:

• The contest rules state that “The Data Warehouse must be limited in speed only by database performance and not by application performance.” Realistic, right?
• Oracle, the “sponsor will select the queries for measurement.” Hmmmmm. Let’s select a couple out of a billion where we know we can win.
• If the Oracle system does not perform as well as Oracle thinks it should when you run it and there is a chance you might win the 10 million, Oracle runs your application again. Themselves. Just to make sure. Maybe with some extra caching on the side?
• “Sponsor disclaims any liability for damage to any computer system or other property resulting, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from participation in, or accessing or downloading information in connection with, this Challenge” If IBM wins, we’ll just blow it up.
• A participant in this contest “acknowledges, understands and agrees that Sponsor will have the unrestricted perpetual right to use, not use, alter, edit, publish, display, and/or post entrant’s entry and information . . .” Interesting that the word alter is in here . . .
• Oracle makes sure there is an easy out. “If no eligible entry is received that meets the above criteria, no prize will be awarded.” The contest rules also state that the “Sponsor reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to disqualify any entrant.”

Once again, this contest distracts the potential contestant from real-world issues such as balanced application performance, real benchmark numbers, software licensing costs, and RAS. I certainly wouldn’t put my money on a winner.

************************************************

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, benchmarking, dollar,Oracle,hardware,Exadata,ibmchallenge,power,benchmark,

software,data,warehouse,795,million,challenge,document,practices,

benchmarking

Dear Performance Advisor Sergio in Austin

Dear Elisabeth:

I had an experience that I would like to share with your readers.

The other day I had a check engine light show up in my car. To anyone else, this might be a non-issue, I always dread those lights. We all have our limitations, and mine is the inability to resolve any car problem besides an empty fuel tank.

The good news is that after taking my car to the mechanic, the only issue was a loose gas cap that was quickly resolved without charge.

The bad news was that it took a day of inconvenience to find out something that would have been simple to resolve if I had a mechanic as a neighbor.

Although I don’t know anything about working with cars, I do happen to work with a group of IBM experts in Power system performance.

They have recently put together a set of advisors that will monitor current running performance of a live Power system with low overhead.  After monitoring, the advisors will provide a clear understanding of how the system is performing, and provide some expert advice on first places to look for improvements.

Essentially, we have found a way to move a whole team of experts into everyone’s data center.

There are currently 3 advisors that can be downloaded for free from the IBM developerWorks website:

• PowerVM performance advisor
• Java performance advisor
• VIOS advisor

Sergio in Austin

Dear Sergio in Austin:
Thanks so much for your letter. So much better than the column last week entitled “Bride wants to keep friend’s lecherous husband off guest list.” (Yes, this is a real one.) Very exciting news about these wonderful performance tools.  Readers, if you have any questions about them, feel free to send a letter to padvisor@us.ibm.com.  Enjoy.

************************************************

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, PowerVM, JAVA,VIOS,advisor,POWER7,benchmarking

Cisco/Oracle Super Saturday TPC-C

So now they’re trying to put another one over on us. “Super Saturday” for retailers, where you shop till you drop the Saturday before Christmas, has been officially moved to tomorrow, one week early. To give us more sales and more time to shop until we drop. I’m just getting tired of being told that I should shop on Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Super Saturday, or any other time. It’s sort of like the greeting card companies saying let’s make a new holiday to celebrate your dog.

And that’s how I’m feeling lately being told about the latest Oracle and Cisco benchmark claims on the newest TPC-C OLTP benchmark result. Here are the 3 things you need to know:

• The Benchmark: Oracle didn’t even run this benchmark. And they didn’t even run it on their own hardware.
• The Performance: Note the special pricey Violin memory arrays that Cisco/Oracle used. And even an IBM result from over a year and a half ago on this benchmark is 70% better performance per core than this result.(1)
• The Pricing: Cisco and Oracle both take advantage of Super Saturday pricing methods in these results. Cisco shows a 57% “large purchase discount” for hardware. Pricing for Oracle 11g is for the limited standard edition. And very minimal support is included.

I know that both American Greetings and my black lab would really like that idea for the new holiday to celebrate your dog. I already bought my lab a large braided rawhide with red and green bows. So you know they have me.

Happy Holidays!

************************************************

(1) An 8-core IBM Power 780 (2 chips, 32 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 is the best 8-core system (1,200,011 tpmC, $.69/tpmC, configuration available 10/13/10) vs. Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Standard Edition One and Oracle Linux on Cisco UCS c250 M2 Extended-Memory Server, 1,053,100 tpmC, $0.58/tpmC, available 12/7/2011.
Source: http://www.tpc.org. Results current as of 12/16/11.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, Sun, Cisco,TPC-C,Oracle,11g,UCS,POWER7,benchmark,C250,standard,Linux,extended,memory,OLTP,benchmarking

All I Want for Christmas is a Good T4 Benchmark

I read an article the other day about a Santa school where aspiring Santas go to learn about how to be Santa Claus. Important concepts like how to comb your beard, how to make that amazing Ho Ho Ho, and where to properly keep your hands when a kid is on your lap.

In this economy one of the new lessons that the Santa school offers is on how to reduce kids’ expectations. Santa’s workshop has too many toys to produce Johnny, Santa can’t fit everything into his sack, a bunch of elves got sick.

Oracle announced a new TPC-H BI 3TB benchmark result today on the Oracle SPARC T4-4 server. Expectations surely need to be reduced on this one because here’s what you need to know:

• Oracle once again used an embarrassing amount of storage to run this benchmark — almost three times the amount of storage that IBM used.(1)
• Oracle once again used 128 query streams for this benchmark compared with IBM’s 8. TPC-H has a limited number of query variations; so when you run a lot of streams, you have a high probability that the same queries will be requested more than once. Oracle is greatly increasing the probability that they will have the results of the queries stored in their cache — which may not be representative of how their product would perform in a truly ad hoc query environment.
• Oracle once again published a benchmark where the configuration isn’t even available — until May 31, 2012.
• Oracle once again included extremely minimal support in their pricing. Does $2300 a year sound like what you are paying for software “incident server support” . . . ?

 

 

The most important lesson for Santas — Never promise anything.

************************************************

(1)IBM POWER 780 (8 sockets/32 cores/128 threads) 192,001 QphH@3000GB, $6.37/QphH@3000GB, available 11/30/11, 15,610 GB storage. Oracle SPARC T4-4 server (4 sockets/32 cores/256 threads) 205,792 QphH@3000GB, $4.10/QphH@3000GB, available 5/31/12, 45,600 GB storage.
Source: http://www.tpc.org. Results current as of 11/30/11.
TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, Sun, 3TB,TPC-H,SPARC,Oracle,T4,POWER7,benchmark,Solaris,11g,Java,Supercluster,T4-4,BI,benchmarking

Is There a “Right” and “Wrong” with Benchmarks?

Like many of our politicians lately, Oracle has been proselytizing — in this case that there are certain benchmarks which are right and certain benchmarks which are wrong.

In their evaluation Oracle claims to focus on all the right benchmarks while claiming that everyone else is focusing on the wrong ones. Let’s take a look at their reviews:

Thumbs up for SPECjEnterprise – Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, a good benchmark to use for Java applications. And that’s why IBM has outstanding results on this benchmark. Oracle’s T4 result needed four times the number of app nodes, twice the number of cores, almost four times the amount of memory and significantly more storage than the IBM POWER7 result.(1)

Thumbs up for Oracle ebusiness, JDEdwards, PeopleSoft, Siebel – Good when you need to model these exact applications but keep in mind that Oracle owns these “independent” benchmarks. Even with a stacked deck, IBM has #1’s here.

Thumbs up for TPC-H – Yes, totally agree that this benchmark is valuable for business intelligence applications. Which is why IBM just published a leadership 3TB TPC-H result.(2) And Oracle’s T4 result needed 2.7x the amount of storage and 14x the number of streams than the IBM POWER7 1TB result.(3)

Thumbs up for SPECweb2005 – Funny that Oracle likes this one since there is a definite lack of publishes here anymore and this benchmark is being retired in January.

Thumbs up for TPC-C – Even funnier that Oracle likes this one since Sun avoided publishing on this for many, many years claiming this benchmark was too old. Now, as a fair-weather friend, it’s a favorite. IBM has the top nonclustered result (even with an older Power system).(4)

Thumbs down for SAP SD – Interesting that this valuable benchmark for SAP users is on Oracle’s hit list. This benchmark is a wonderful measure for SAP users and has many proof points from many vendors. Is that why Oracle tries to avoid this one and instead publishes on other more obscure SAP benchmarks like SD-Parallel and ATO?

Thumbs down for SPECjAppServer2004 – Looking to fill up space, since Oracle knows as well as we do that this benchmark was retired almost a year ago. Also ironic because I do seem to remember that Oracle/Sun used to really like this benchmark. Alot.

Thumbs down for SPECcpu and SPECjbb – These are nice and easy for integer, floating point, and Java business apps. Surely valuable in their own way.

Thumbs down for Stream – Ignoring HPC users are we? We’ve seen this before with the TOP500. IBM has the most systems with 213. Oracle had 12.

Keep in mind that Oracle has only published their latest SPARC T4 results on 2 industry standard benchmarks — that’s right, only 2. Which is fine, if you don’t mind steering with your eyes closed.

My view is that you may want and need to look at different aspects of systems across a wide portfolio of many different types of benchmarks. Which is why IBM is #1 — in over 100.

************************************************

(1)Oracle WebLogic Server 11g and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Real Application Clusters and Oracle Solaris running on a four-node SPARC T4-4 cluster, each system with four SPARC T4 3GHz processors, (128 core app server, 64 core db server), 40,104.86 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS vs. WebSphere Application Server V7 on IBM Power 780 and DB2 on IBM Power 750 Express, (64 core app server, 32 core db server), 16,646.34 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS.
(2)IBM POWER 780 (8 sockets/32 cores/128 threads) 192,001 QphH@3000GB, $6.37/QphH@3000GB, available 11/30/11.
(3)SPARC T4-4 server (4 sockets/32 cores/256 threads) 201,487 QphH@1000GB, $4.60/QphH@1000GB, available 10/30/11. IBM POWER 780 Model 9179-MHB server (8 sockets/32 cores/128 threads) 164,747.2 QphH@1000GB, $6.85/QphH@1000GB, available 3/31/11.
(4)A 64-core IBM Power 595 (5 GHz, 32 chips, 128 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 is the best overall single system (6,085,166 tpmC, $2.81/tpmC, configuration available 12/10/08).
Sources: http://www.spec.org, http://www.tpc.org, http://www.top500.org. Results current as of 10/26/11.

TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

SAP, mySAP and other SAP product and service names mentioned herein as well as their respective
logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries all
over the world.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, BI, TPC,TPC-H,SPARC,Oracle,T4,POWER7,benchmark,TPC-C,SPEC,Stream,SAP,T4-4,Java,benchmarking

Expect More (zing) From Your Storage . . . and Servers

There’s a whole lot of performance zing in the IBM announcements today including:

IBM XIV Gen3 set a new storage efficiency benchmark with two times better disk efficiency than EMC in the ESRP test.(1)

The IBM DS8800, along with zEnterprise and DB2, published a new world record for SAP banking workloads of 59 million account postings per hour.

The IBM Power 780 has just published #1 Java and high performance computing benchmark results with new 96-core and 3.92 GHz systems.

And of course, IBM SmartCloud has zing too — such as reducing the metric of time required to provision an SAP Test environment from weeks to minutes.

Zing.

************************************************

(1)Microsoft Exchange Solution Reviewed Program (ESRP). http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/ff182054; IBM XIV Gen3 result of 65 vs. EMC VMAX result of 32.
Performance is based on measurements and projections using benchmarks in a controlled environment. The actual throughput that any user will experience will vary depending upon considerations such as the amount of multiprogramming in the user’s job stream, the I/O configuration, the storage configuration, and the workload processed. Therefore, no assurance can be given that an individual user will achieve throughput improvements equivalent to the performance ratios stated here. Disk efficiency is (#mailboxes * IOPS per mailbox / number of disks) * mailbox capacity, using vendor postings as of October 1, 2011.

SAP, mySAP and other SAP product and service names mentioned herein as well as their respective
logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries all
over the world.

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: IBM, systems, performance, ESRP, XIV,DS8800,SAP,Linpack,780,POWER7,benchmark,IOPS,zEnterprise,DB2,EMC,VMAX,SPEC,SmartCloud,benchmarking