benchmarkingblog

Elisabeth Stahl on Benchmarking and IT Optimization

Posts Tagged ‘SAP

Back in Time with Oracle

with one comment

Some of you may know that this week was a very big one for “Back to the Future” movie fans. On Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015, at 4:29 p.m., our today caught up to the tomorrow depicted in “Back to the Future, Part II.” In that 1989 film, a DeLorean time machine appears from 30 years in the past.

To those who love time travel, this is a really big deal. Some towns even went so far as to rename themselves to the featured city in the film. Ceremonies worldwide were performed at exactly 4:29PM.

And this reminded me of a benchmark result that was just published today by Oracle on the SAP SD benchmark.

As we move into newer digital workloads, some of the older industry benchmarks have gone by the wayside. Many of us have spent a lot of time analyzing these newer workloads and developing new metrics for them. But one classic benchmark is still extremely appropriate for many of today’s applications – and that is the suite of SAP benchmarks.

But this new Oracle result just published is clearly dated — even though it is a brand new result on a brand new Oracle SPARC system. The IBM Power Systems result with DB2 from over 1 year ago is over 2X better performance per core than this new Oracle SPARC result. (1)

What’s really exciting, unlike this new benchmark result, is that many of the predictions of the future in the “Back to the Future” movie were right on. But I am still waiting for the dog-walking drone.

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

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.

(1)IBM Power Enterprise System E870 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors / 80 cores / 640 threads, POWER8; 4.19GHz, 2048 GB memory, 79,750 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, dialog response: 0.97 seconds, order line items/hour: 8,722,000, dialog steps/hour: 26,166,000, SAPS: 436,100, Database response time (dialog/update): 0.013 sec / 0.026 sec, CPU utilization: 99%, Cert #2014034 vs. Oracle SPARC T7-2 result of 30,800 users, Average dialog response time: 0.96 seconds, Fully processed order line items/hour: 3,372,000, Dialog steps/hour: 10,116,000, SAPS: 168,600, Average database request time (dialog/update):0.022 sec / 0.047 sec, CPU utilization of central server:98%, Operating system, central server: Solaris 11, RDBMS: Oracle 12c, SAP Business Suite software:SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0, Certification number: #2015050, SPARC T7-2, 2 processors / 64 cores / 512 threads,SPARC M7 4.133 GHz, 16 KB (D) and 16 KB (I) L1 cache per core, 256 KB (D) L2 cache per 2 cores and 256KB (I) per 4 cores, 64 MB L3 cache per processor, 1024 GB main memory

SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies.

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,

Advertisements

Written by benchmarkingblog

October 23, 2015 at 12:59 pm

Posted in Oracle, SAP

Tagged with , , , , , ,

More Super POWER8: The Long and Short (grain) of IT

with one comment

I know this may sound corny — but I was recently working on a project where I needed to find proverbs. Yes, you read that right, proverbs. Actually several proverbs to introduce several subjects.

At first I thought — this is really contrived, how will this help move the subject along. In fact, this idea really sucks. And then suddenly after spending a few days wading deep into the proverbial proverb sea, I came to realize the deep dark truth: I love proverbs.

Proverbs are short and sweet and speak to our inner feelings better than we could ever express ourselves.

One of my absolutely favorite proverbs is a simple one and I think of it pretty much all the time these days: Talk doesn’t cook rice.

I love this one because it is short and sweet and gets right to the point. Talk does not open the box of rice. Talk does not measure out the rice and the water. And talk certainly does not turn on the stove.

Talk is cheap. Many of us love to talk — at meetings, on the phone, about claims for new products. But is anything really getting cooked ? That’s where the rubber meets the road.

IBM today announced amazing new OpenPOWER based POWER8 systems and a portfolio of outstanding solutions.

Like the scale-out accelerated Linux Power S824L, the scale-up E870 and E880, the IBM Data Engine for Analytics, Power Enterprise Pools for cloud infrastructure. And not just with the talk but with real data, measured out and cooked.

  • As just one example, with the SAP Sales and Distribution benchmark, the new Power E870 POWER8 system was over 2.1x better performance per core than Dell’s x86 system with the brand new “Haswell” chip and over 2.7x better performance per core than the Oracle SPARC M6. (1)
  • See all the new benchmark data in the IBM Power Systems Performance Report. Includes outstanding SPEC CPU and Java results, CPW, and rPerf (now for multiple SMT values !)
  • The new Power E870 and Power E880 Systems support up to 1,000 VMs per system.
  • And the OpenPOWER Foundation now has 59 members – all working together to leverage the IBM POWER processor’s open architecture for broad industry innovation.

You may have seen other new announcements over the past few weeks from a variety of IT providers. But as you read through the claims that have a clear lack of data — you just may find the rice crunchy.

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

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.

(1)IBM Power Enterprise System E870 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors / 80 cores / 640 threads, POWER8; 4.19GHz, 2048 GB memory, 79,750 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, dialog response: 0.97 seconds, order line items/hour:  8,722,000, dialog steps/hour: 26,166,000, SAPS: 436,100, Database response time (dialog/update): 0.013 sec / 0.026 sec, CPU utilization: 99%, Cert #2014034.  Result valid as of October 3, 2014. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. vs. Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor E5-2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033.vs. Oracle SPARC Server M6-32 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 32 processors/384 cores/3072 threads, SPARC M6; 3.60 GHz, 16 TB memory; 140,000 SD benchmark users, running Solaris® 11 and Oracle 11g; Certification # 20014008. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. Results current as of 10/3/14.

SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies.

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)

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,

,,

,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

October 3, 2014 at 7:47 am

Posted in announcement, POWER8, SAP

Tagged with ,

Awesome POWER8 Benchmarks, Awesome Dessert

with 3 comments

New frozen yogurt establishments seem to be popping up everywhere. You know, the ones with the cute name, the pink and green decor, the pink and green spoons to match.

A key differentiator in this new wave of stores is the do-it-yourself aspect. But even more extraordinary is the mind-boggling array of toppings. Dozens, in some cases hundreds. I especially love the portfolio of berries that are offered — but my favorite happens to be the small pieces of chocolate that look like rocks.

These stores have pretty much bloomed everywhere these days — whether rural, suburban, or urban area. I had seen them first in Manhattan a couple of years ago; but I knew they had become a true game changer when I located one in, of all places, suburban Poughkeepsie.

IBM today has just formally announced new POWER8 systems, servers that allow data centers to manage staggering data requirements with unprecedented speed, all built on an open server platform. This game-changing infrastructure represents IBM’s singular commitment to providing higher-value, open technologies for the latest types of applications, including cloud, big data and analytics, and mobile and social computing.

Of course, performance is a key factor in this groundbreaking technology. Some of us may have heard about these new systems earlier; but today is the day if you are really into performance — and this dessert is the best part. IBM has just added 6 new #1 benchmarks to the already huge portfolio of existing record benchmarks. Let’s take a look at these for the new IBM Power S824:

 

What’s especially interesting about these 6 is that they represent a wide portfolio of excellence and value in a real world environment — from specific applications that you run everyday, like sales, payroll, and order management, to Java and even technical computing. And these are varied workloads (just like all those berries) from various vendors, including Oracle, that have been shown via popular and well-accepted third party benchmarks to surpass all other systems, including x86.

 

Benchmarks, pick your favorite #1.

Mine is still the chocolate that looks like rocks.

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

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.

(1)IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 192 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, dialog response: 0.98 seconds, line items/hour: 2,317,330, dialog steps/hour: 6.952,000 SAPS: 115,870 database response time (dialog/update): 0.011 sec / 0.019sec, CPU utilization: 99%, Certification #2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
(2)The 12-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) achieved the best 12-core extra-large Oracle E-business 12.1.3 benchmark Payroll batch result (1,090,909 checks per hour). Source: http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/performance-scalability/index.html
(3)The 6-core IBM Power S824 (4.1 GHz) database server achieved the best overall Siebel CRM 8.1.1.4 result (50,000 users).
Source: http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
(4)The 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) db running DB2 10.5 / 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) app running WebSphere 8.5 is the best 24-core SPECjEnterprise2010 configuration (22,543 Enterprise jAppServer Operations Per Second (EjOPS)) . Source: http://www.spec.org
(5)The 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.5 GHz, POWER8) is the best 24-core system (1370 SPECfp_rate2006 result, 24 cores, 4 chips, 6 cores/chip, 8 threads/core). http://www.spec.org
(6)The 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.5 GHz, POWER8) is the best 24-core system (1750 SPECint_rate2006 result, 24 cores, 4 chips, 6 cores/chip, 8 threads/core). http://www.spec.org

All results current as of April 28, 2014.

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.

Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. 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).

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,

,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

April 28, 2014 at 7:24 am

Digging into SAP HANA on HP

with one comment

All of the snow has finally melted in my backyard. And what that means to me is that I don’t have to shovel for awhile. What that means to my dog is another story.

It’s a field day for him. Now he can get back to what he surely thinks is his real job – digging in the dirt. And what has he found? A plastic flower pot that he can chew on. 3 beat up tennis balls from the summer. A soup bone from 3 months ago. Treasures.

HP just announced this morning that they are delivering a “System with Faster Analytics Engine for SAP HANA Environments.” HP claims a 2x performance advantage over other solutions. Let’s dig into this claim and take a look at the facts:

  • The performance claim is based on the SAP BW Extended Mixed Workload Benchmark, a benchmark with only 4 results. And 3 of those results are from, you guessed it, HP.
  • The SAP BW-EML benchmark results that HP references in their footnote in this press release are from September 2013 — a lifetime ago in the benchmark world.
  • The HP system they reference in the press release is not even the system that is in the benchmark. HP’s new system is not even available.
  • Even if you did try to compare the HP and IBM results, it does not make sense. The HP and IBM results are in different categories of the benchmark, using a different number of records. The HP result used an application and database tier; the IBM result is on a central server.
  • Even if you ignored the fact that it doesn’t make sense to compare these results, if you do, the HP result used 2.5x the processing cores, 2x the memory, 4x the L1 cache, 2x the L2 cache per core. So the IBM result actually has 28% better throughput per core than the HP result.(1)

Please HP, dig more and come up with some new exciting treasures next time so we readers are not left in the dirt.

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

(1) IBM Power System 7 Express Server Central Server: IBM Power System 750 Express Server, 4 processor / 32 cores / 128 threads, POWER7+, 4.06GHz, 32KB(D) + 32KB(I) L1 cache and 256KB L2 cache per core, 10MB L3 cache per core, 512GB main memory; certification #2013020 (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11, DB2 for I 7.1, SAP NetWeaver 7.30, 66,900 ad-hoc navigation steps/hr) vs.
SAP BW-EML Benchmark: Database tier: HP ProLiant DL580 G7, 4 processor / 40 cores / 80 threads, Intel Xeon Processor E7-4870, 2.40GHz, 64KB L1 cache and 256KB L2 cache per core, 30MB L3 cache per processor, 512GB main memory; Application tier: HP ProLiant BL680 G7, 4 processor / 40 cores / 80 threads, Intel Xeon Processor E7-4870, 2.40GHz, 64KB L1 cache and 256KB L2 cache per core, 30MB L3 cache per processor, 512GB main memory; certification #2013027 (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11,SAP HANA 1.0,SAP NetWeaver 7.30,129,930 ad-hoc navigation steps/hr)
http://www.sap.com. Results current as of 3/19/14.

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: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

March 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Posted in HP, SAP

Tagged with , ,

On Fencing Claims and Real World Benchmarks

leave a comment »

I am so intimately familiar with fencing it’s not funny.

I’ve had épées, foils, and even sabers at my house. I’ve been to Junior Olympics (as a spectator, of course). My washer has seen fencing jackets, knickers, and a various assortment of brightly colored and very sweaty high socks.

I grew up with a wooden hitching post fence in my yard. My current neighbor has a white picket fence that I look at every day. There is a chain link fence in the back so my black lab can’t get into trouble.

But the fencing I really wanted to talk about is the fencing of claims.

OK, so maybe if a metric is not an overall #1 it does make sense to look at it in a slightly different way. I get per core. I get single system. I get #1 for a particular subset of a benchmark suite. But I would say it has just about gone too far.

A claim I saw the other day was fenced not by a piece of hardware, not a particular type of system, not a benchmark category. This claim was a “world record” for a very specific enhancement package of a very specific version of a very specific type of application software. It’s like saying I am the #1 grape picker in the world with purple eyes wearing yellow pants with green stripes on them. Oh, and pink stilettos. Oh and by the way, those grapes are actually raisins.

Enough already with playing these segmentation games.

Many times what really matters most is how your specific workload performs on a specific system.

spedometer

For that I would recommend

 

 

************************************************
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: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

April 15, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Posted in SAP

Tagged with ,

Moonshot vs. Metrics

with 2 comments

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: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

April 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Posted in POWER7, SAP

Tagged with , ,

Oracle’s SPARC T5 and M5 Benchmarks: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

with 21 comments

I think I’ve said this before but one of my most absolute favorite movies is Groundhog Day. (Attention: spoiler is coming but since the fricking movie is from 1993 and most of us were old even way back then, I don’t think I will be ruining it for anyone.) Groundhog Day is an American comedy film directed by Harold Ramis and starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell (who by the way I’ve been told that I sort of look like which is really cool since she does L’Oréal ads). In the film an arrogant and egocentric TV weatherman, covering the annual Groundhog Day event, finds himself repeating the same day again and again.

The phrase “Groundhog Day” now has entered common lexicon as a reference to an unpleasant situation that continually repeats, or seems to.

And I would say that is exactly what we have with Oracle’s new SPARC T5 and M5 benchmarks.

Just as with every Oracle processor announcement, the benchmark results do the same thing. Many of the claims are Oracle’s own benchmarks that are not published and audited. There are a small number of industry standard benchmarks — and of course these are ones where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compare to other relevant results. For price claims, Oracle, as they’ve done in the past, only factors in the price of the pizza box – make sure you add in the all-important software and storage.

Let’s take a look at the T5 and M5 benchmark results:

  • SAP: The IBM POWER7+ with DB2 10 SAP SD 2-tier result from back in September was 1.3x greater per core than the M5 and 1.9x greater than the T5 result.(1) The IBM average database request time was also much better and the CPU utilization of the IBM system was also more effective.
  • TPC-C: An IBM POWER6 result from 2008, 2 generations ago, is 42% higher per core than the new T5 result on this OLTP benchmark. An IBM POWER7 result from 2010, 1 generation ago, is 2.2x better performance per core than the Oracle result. (2) The price for all Oracle database software support used in computing the price/performance for this benchmark is $2300/year – I can only guess what you get for that. Also note that this benchmark used Oracle Partitioning which may not be realistic for your real world workloads. The Oracle database software is not even available until September.
  • SPECjEnterprise2010: Oracle’s T5 result needed four times the number of database cores, four times the amount of memory and significantly more storage than the IBM POWER7 result. (3)
  • SPECjbb2013: For Java business, let’s run a benchmark that can only be compared with a couple of ProLiants, one of our old T4s, and a Supermicro. (4)
  • SPECcpu: IBM Power Systems is #1 – don’t forget to look at number of cores for integer and floating point claims.
  • TPC-H: Ha, got you. There is no TPC-H. Funny, was expecting one based on what we saw for the T4. I wonder why . . .
  • The other benchmark claims? These are once again ones that either are Oracle’s own benchmarks or ones nobody cares about because they don’t look like anything we actually run. Chance of departure from useful benchmark results: 100%.
  • Don’t let these claims distract from asking about the business value delivered by these systems.

    I wake up every day, right here, right in Cleveland, and it’s always snowing, and there’s nothing I can do about it. “Winter, slumbering in the open air, wears on its smiling face a dream… of spring.”

    ************************************************
    (1)IBM Power 780 (3.72 GHz) two-tier SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark result (SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application: 12 processors / 96 cores / 384 threads, POWER7+, 1536 GB memory, 57,024 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10, dialog resp.: 0.98s, line items/hour: 6,234,330, Dialog steps/hour: 18,703,000, SAPS: 311,720, DB time (dialog/ update): 0.009s / 0.014s, CPU utilization: 99%, Certification #2012033

    Oracle SPARC Server M5-32 SAP SD 2-tier result of 85,050 users, Average dialog response time: 0.80 seconds, Fully processed order line items per hour: 9,452,000,Dialog steps per hour: 28,356,000,SAPS: 472,600,Average database request time (dialog/update): 0.018 sec / 0.044 sec,CPU utilization of central server: 82%,Operating system, central server: Solaris 11,RDBMS: Oracle 11g,SAP Business Suite software: SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0,32 processors / 192 cores / 1536 threads,SPARC M5, 3.60 GHz, 16 KB (D) and 16 KB (I) L1 cache and128 KB L2 cache per core, 48 MB L3 cache per processor,4096 GB main memory,Certification #2013009

    Oracle SPARC Server T5-8 SAP SD 2-tier result of 40,000 users,Average dialog response time: 0.86 seconds,Fully processed order line items per hour: 4,419,000,Dialog steps per hour: 13,257,000,SAPS: 220,950,Average database request time (dialog/update): 0.049 sec / 0.131 sec,CPU utilization of central server: 88%, Operating system, central server: Solaris 11,RDBMS: Oracle 11g,SAP Business Suite software: SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0, 8 processors / 128 cores / 1024 threads,SPARC T5, 3.60 GHz, 16 KB (D) and 16 KB (I) L1 cache and 128 KB L2 cache per core, 8 MB L3 cache per processor,2048 GB main memory,Certification #2013008.

    (2) IBM Power 780 (2 chips, 8 cores, 32 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 (1,200,011 tpmC, $.69/tpmC, configuration available 10/13/10); IBM Power 595 (5 GHz, 32 chips, 64 cores, 128 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 (6,085,166 tpmC, $2.81/tpmC, configuration available 12/10/08); vs. Oracle SPARC T5-8 (8 chips, 128 cores, 1024 threads – 8,552,523 tpmC, $.55/tpmC, configuration available 9/25/13).

    (3) 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 vs. SPARC T5-8 server (SPARC T5-8 server base package, 8x SPARC T5 16-core processors, 128x16GB-1066 DIMMS, 2x600GB 10K RPM 2.5” SAS-2 HDD result of SPARC T5-8, 57,422.17 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS.

    (4) http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/performance-scalability/sparc-t5-2-specjbb2013-1925099.html

    Sources: http://www.spec.org, http://www.tpc.org, http://www.sap.com. Results current as of 3/26/13.

    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: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Written by benchmarkingblog

    March 26, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    %d bloggers like this: