The Intel Xeon E5 v4 Review: Testing Broadwell-EP With Demanding Server Workloads
by Johan De Gelas on March 31, 2016 12:30 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon
- Enterprise
- Enterprise CPUs
- Broadwell
MySQL 5.7.0
Thanks to the excellent repository of Percona, we were able to vastly improve our MySQL benchmark with Sysbench. However due to these changes, you cannot compare this with any similar Sysbench based benchmarking we have done before.
In updating our SQL benchmarking, we first upgraded the standard mysql installation to the better performing Percona Server 5.7. Secondly, we used sysbench 0.5 (instead of 0.4) and we implemented the (lua) scripts that allow us to use multiple tables (8 in our case) instead of the default one. This makes the Sysbench benchmark much more realistic as running with one table creates a very artificial bottleneck.
For our testing we used the read-only OLTP benchmark, which is slightly less realistic, but still much more interesting than most other Sysbench tests. This allows us to measure CPU performance without creating an I/O bottleneck. Our humble S3500 SSDs were fast enough in this scenario.
We used to apply all kinds of hacks to get around the limited scalability of both mysql and the way sysbench tested. Any version older than 5.5 could hardly scale beyond 8 cores. It is still not perfect, but MySQL uses the first 22 cores and 44 threads of the Xeon E5-2699 v4 amazingly well. We only get a 24% performance increase if we double the core count again with a second CPU, but we are honestly surprised that MySQL can now make good use of those 88 threads. Thanks to our better testing methods and a more scalable mysql, we can now report that the latest Xeon is capable of doubling the performance of the best Xeon that was launched 4 years ago. Well done Oracle, Percona, and Intel!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
112 Comments
View All Comments
ltcommanderdata - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Does anyone know the Windows support situation for Broadwell-EP for workstation use? Microsoft said Broadwell is the last fully supported processor for Windows 7/8.1 with Skylake getting transitional support and Kaby Lake will not be supported. So how does Broadwell-EP fit in? Is it lumped in with Broadwell and is fully supported or will it be treated like Skylake with temporary support until 2018 and only critical security updates after that? And following on will Skylake-EP see any Windows 7/8.1 support at all or will it not be supported since it'll presumably be released after Kaby Lake?extide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
When MS says they are not supporting Skylake on Windows 7 DOES NOT MEAN it won't work. It just means they are not going to add any specific support for that processor in the older OS's. They are not adding in the speed shift support, essentially.For some reason the press has not made this very clear, and many people are freaking out thinking that there will be a hard break here will stuff will straight up not work. That is not the case.
Broadwell has no new OS level features over Haswell (unlike Skylake with speed shift) so there is nothing special about Broadwell to the OS. As the poster above mentions, they are all x86 cpu's and will all still work with x86 OS's.
The difference here is between "Fully Supported" and Compatible. Skylake and even Kaby Lake will be compatible with WIndows 7/8/8.1.
aryonoco - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Johan, this is yet again by far the best Enterprise CPU benchmark that's available anywhere on the net.Thank you for your detailed, scientific and well documented work. Works like this are not easy, I can only imagine how many man hours (weeks?) compiling this article must have taken. I just want you to know that it's hugely appreciated.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Great to read this after weeks of hard work! :-Dfsdjmellisse - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
hello, i want to buy E5-2630L v4any one can give me website for buy it ?
Best regards
HrD - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I'm confused by the following:"The following compiler switches were used on icc:
-fast -openmp -parallel
The results are expressed in GB per second. The following compiler switches were used on icc:
-O3 –fopenmp –static"
Shouldn't one of these refer to icc and the other to gcc?
JohanAnandtech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Pretty sure I did not mix them up. "-fast" does not work on gcc neither does -fopenmp work on icc.patrickjp93 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Um, wrong and wrong. -Ofast works with GCC 4.9 and later for sure. And -fopenmp is a valid ICC flag post-ICC 13.JohanAnandtech - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
"-fast" is a typical icc flag. (I did not write -"Ofast" that works on gcc 4.8 too)extide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Johan, if you read the comment, you can see that you mention icc for BOTH.