Benchmark Configuration

Here is the list of the different configurations. All servers have been flashed to the latest BIOS at this moment.


Inside our lab

Quad Xeon Server 1: Supermicro SC818TQ-1000 1U Chassis
2x - 4 x Intel Xeon E7330 at 2.4GHz and X7350 at 2.93GHz
Supermicro X7QCE board
16GB (8 x 2GB) Samsung M395T5750EZ4 667MHz 5-5-5-18
NIC: Dual Intel PRO/1000 Server NIC
PSU: Supermicro 1000W w/PFC (Model PWS-1K01-1R)

Dual Xeon Server 2: Intel "Stoakley platform" server
Supermicro X7DWE+/X7DWN+ board
1 or 2 Xeon E5472 at 3GHz, Xeon L5430 at 2.66GHz, and Xeon E5470 at 3.33GHz
16GB (8x 2GB) Samsung M395T5750EZ4 667MHz 5-5-5-18
NIC: Dual Intel PRO/1000 Server NIC
PSU: Ablecom PWS-702A-1R 700W

Dual and Quad Opteron Server: Supermicro SC828TQ-R1200LPB 2U Chassis
1, 2 or 4 AMD Opteron 8356 series at 2.3GHz
1, 2 or 4 AMD Opteron 8384 series at 2.7GHz
Supermicro H8QMi-2+ board
16GB (8x 2GB) Avant AVF7256R61E6800FB-MTEP 800MHz 6-5-5-18
NIC: Dual Intel PRO/1000 Server NIC
PSU: Supermicro 1200W w/PFC (Model PWS-1K22-1R)

Client Configuration: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Foxconn P35AX-S
4GB (2x 2GB) Kingston 667MHz DDR-2
NIC: Intel Pro/1000

Index ERP and OLTP Benchmark 1: SAP S&D
POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • zpdixon42 - Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - link

    DDR2-1067: oh, you are right. I was thinking of Deneb.

    Yes performance/dollar depends on the application you are running, so what I am suggesting more precisely is that you compute some perf/$ metric for every benchmark you run. And even if the CPU price is less negligible compared to the rest of the server components, it is always interesting to look both at absolute perf and perf/$ rather than just absolute perf.

    Reply
  • denka - Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - link

    32-bit? 1.5Gb SGA? This is really ridiculous. Your tests should be bottlenecked by IO Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - link

    I forgot to mention that the database created is slightly larger than 1 GB. And we wouldn't be able to get >80% CPU load if we were bottlenecked by I/O Reply
  • denka - Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - link

    You are right, this is a smallish database. By the way, when you report CPU utilization, would you take IOWait separate from CPU used? If taken together (which was not clear) it is possible to get 100% CPU utilization out of which 90% will be IOWait :) Reply
  • denka - Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - link

    Not to be negative: excellent article, by the way Reply
  • mkruer - Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - link

    If/When AMD does release the Istanbul (k10.5 6-core), The Nehalem will again be relegated to second place for most HPC. Reply
  • Exar3342 - Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - link

    Yeah, by that time we will have 8-core Sandy Bridge 32nm chips from Intel... Reply
  • Amiga500 - Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - link

    I guess the key battleground will be Shanghai versus Nehalem in the virtualised server space...

    AMD need their optimisations to shine through.


    Its entirely understandable that you could not conduct virtualisation tests on the Nehalem platform, but unfortunate from the point of view that it may decide whether Shanghai is a success or failure over its life as a whole. As always, time is the great enemy! :-)
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - link

    "you could not conduct virtualisation tests on the Nehalem platform"

    Yes. At the moment we have only 3 GB of DDR-3 1066. So that would make pretty poor Virtualization benches indeed.

    "unfortunate from the point of view that it may decide whether Shanghai is a success or failure"

    Personally, I think this might still be one of Shanghai strong points. Virtualization is about memory bandwidth, cache size and TLBs. Shanghai can't beat Nehalem's BW, but when it comes to TLB size it can make up a bit.
    Reply
  • VooDooAddict - Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - link

    With the VMWare benchmark, it is really just a measure of the CPU / Memory. Unless you are running applications with very small datasets where everything fits into RAM, the primary bottlenck I've run into is the storage system. I find it much better to focus your hardware funds on the storage system and use the company standard hardware for server platform.

    This isn't to say the bench isn't useful. Just wanted to let people know not to base your VMWare buildout soley on those numbers.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now