Data Warehouse Test Explained

We are always looking to improve the quality of our reviews and as a result, we have added a new Stress Test to our suite.

This "Data Warehouse" test is focused on large record sets with plenty of aggregation. This test is based on a system that we developed to track and manage Request statistics for www.AnandTech.com and Forums.AnandTech.com. It tracks statistics like Requests/Hour, Requests/Hour/IP Address, Unique IP Addresses/Hour, Unique Users/Hour, Daily Browser stats, etc. These stats are further summarized by site, i.e.: www or Forums.

As with the other Stress Tests, each test was repeated three times and the average between the three tests was used. For this Data Warehouse Stress Test, we defined a quantity of work to complete and measured how long each platform required to process the workload.

So, to ensure that IO was not the bottleneck, each test was started with a database, including tempdb, which had already been expanded so that autogrow activity did not occur during the test. During the execution of the tests, there were no applications running on the server or monitoring software. Task Manager, Profiler, and Performance Monitor where used when establishing the baseline for the test, but never during execution of the tests.

At the beginning of each platform, the server was rebooted to ensure a clean and consistent environment. The database was always copied to the 8 disk RAID 0 array with no other files present to ensure that file placement and fragmentation was consistent between runs. In between each of the three tests, the database was deleted, the original database was copied again to the array, and SQL Server was restarted.

There is no "client" required for this test. The workload is initiated by a stored procedure call from Query Analyzer.


"Order Entry" Stress Test results Data Warehouse results
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • Zan Lynx - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    I see Viditor explained what he really wanted. That was my first comment and by the time I'd filled out all the forms and received the email with my password he had already explained. Sorry. Please ignore me.
  • Zan Lynx - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    Viditor, the test hardware used 8GB RAM for both the Xeon and Opteron systems according to page 2.
  • Viditor - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    Jason - Let me expand on my request...

    Because there is still no hardware IOMMU on Xeon chipsets, I believe they must use PAE for 64bit addressing over 4GB, however Opteron doesn't have this problem and can address directly up to 128GB.
    I would very much like to see the results of a comparison on the same testbed you used for this article (8GB Ram) to compare and see how much this effects performance as this seems a very typical model to me.

    Cheers!
  • Viditor - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    Jason - Very well done test and article!

    I too would be very interested in a 64bit Linux (or even Windows Beta) test with that configuration...
    One of the things I am anxious to see is Xeons reaction to >4GB of ram on its performance. There are still NO results (that I have seen) with that configuration.

    Cheers, and thanks for the article.
  • sri2000 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    Someone mentioned adding other database functions to provide different kind of stresses. How about using SQL Server Data Transfromation Services (DTS) to perform a variety of mass imports/exports from the test database?

    You could also perform some Full-Text searches mixed in with the regular queries on appropriately indexed tables - though those are really disk intensive rather than CPU-intensive (though the CPU usage does spike significantly when these queries are run).

    I also wonder if adding queries which hit Views in addition to regular tables would affect anything, the result being that you're essentially running nested queries (though this doesn't likely reflect the type of usage seen in your forums, which was the basis of this test).

    By the same token, having queries that use wildcards, user functions, sub-queries, etc (rather than just simple selects & inserts) will also add complexity to the searches & might affect the results.

  • Marlin1975 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    Like someone else pointed out, when will you do some test to see what the SSE3 did for AMD.

    Also what were the temps on both of the NEW Cpus. Haveing hundreds of them in a server room can cost a arm and a leg to keep cool, so I think temps do matter here.
  • fitten - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    #39, we don't need to point out that 64-bit Intel P4 Xeons have been out and available for a while even though WindowsXP64 isn't available yet. You can run the RC WindowsXP64 on those and on Opterons/Athlon64s.
  • rgb - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    I don't think the BIOS of the test machine was adapted to Revision E Opterons.

    I adapted LinuxBIOS to the Rev E stepping last week and the 1 GHz support is really the easiest thing (was already present in revision D processors). Changing the HT speed while the operating system is running is _very_ difficult. It requires a reset or LDTSTOP on both CPUs for the new frequency to be effective, so this is normally done a boot time in the BIOS. I guess ntune does not really change the HT frequency.

    In addition Revision E has a number of errata fixed which result in improved performance (for example Errata 94).

    The most important point is the new memory controller mode that reduces the DRAM bank conflicts. It improves STREAM benchmarks scores around 30%. This modes has to be automatically enabled by the BIOS, so please rerun the benchmark on a mainboard that supports Rev E processors.

  • Quanticles - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    I'd really want to see tests run on Linux, even if it is 32-bit. There are too many Windows programs that are tailored to Intel processors.

    I dont need to point out that Microsoft is delaying the 64 bit version of Windows until Intel has their 64 bit processor come out. If they're going to delay like that then I wonder how well the Opteron will preform on it.
  • Phiro - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    Jason: Ignore all the 64-bit idiots. Please keep supplying 32-bit sql benchmarks for a LONG time - in the real world 99.5% of production dbs are running on 32-bit sql servers and that number will remain quite high for a long, long time no matter how fast 64-bit takes off.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now