OLTP benchmark::Oracle Charbench “Calling Circle” 

Operating System:              Windows 2008 Enterprise RTM (64 bit)
Software:                              Oracle 10g Release 2 (10.2) for 64 bit Windows
Benchmark software:        Swingbench/Charbench 2.2
Database Size:                      9 GB
Typical error margin:          2-2.5% 

Calling Circle is an Oracle OLTP benchmark. We test with a database size of 9 GB. To reduce the pressure on our storage system, we increased the SGA size (Oracle buffer in RAM) to 10 GB and the PGA size was set at 1.6 GB.  A calling circle tests consists of 83% selects, 7% inserts and 10% updates. The “calling circle” test is run for 10 minutes. A run is repeated 6 times and the results of the first run are discarded. The reason is that the disk queue length is sometimes close to 1, while the subsequent runs have a DQL (Disk Queue Length) of 0.2 or lower. In this case it was rather easy to run the CPUs at 99% load. Since DQLs were very similar, we could keep our results from the Nehalem article.

Oracle Calling Circle

We kept this benchmark setup the same over more than a year of the testing which allows us to offer some historical perspective. Unfortunately the benchmark starts to show its age too. Our disk setup still has a bit of – but not much – headroom, but the scaling is starting to show diminishing returns. If we want to test the full potential of these six-core Xeons and servers with even higher core counts, we will need to increase our database size and as a result the amount of memory we allocate to Oracle.

We expect the Dual Xeon X5670 to be able to do better than the 31% performance increase over a single CPU setup. We saw 100% load for most of the time, but very sharp drops of CPU utilization were also common. But that does not invalidate our results: it just shows that when throwing more and more cores at certain application, you will bump into limits sooner or later.  Even on those applications which naturally scale well, the number of scenarios where more cores help will decline.

The real power of the new X5670 is demonstrated by the single CPU results: the X5670 comes close to a dual Xeon X5570 and beats a dual Opteron 2435 by a considerable 38%. This despite the fact that BIOS upgrades and slightly faster memory have allowed the six-core Opteron to become 10% faster. One of the reasons why Intel is slapping the current AMD offerings silly is Hyperthreading, good for 35% performance increase in both the Xeon X5570 and single X5670 setups. 

Upgrading from an old top-of-the-line of its time Dual Xeon 5365 3.0 Server to a server with only one six-core delivers twice as much performance. Pretty impressive if you consider the former server is only 3 years old and used two 130W TDP CPUs.

Benchmark Configuration SAP Sales and Distribution 2-tier
Comments Locked

40 Comments

View All Comments

  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    Are you seriously going to buy a dual socket server (or workstation at a minimum) to play games? I'd rather see them take the time to do more enterprise benchmarking than waste it on what 0.00001% of the market wants.
  • Starglider - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link

    No but some HPC / CAD / scientific computing benchmarks would be good. Presumably we'll get the full suite when Nehalem EX and Magny Cours turn up.
  • vitchilo - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    I want to encode video, I mean a s***load of video + play games from time to time.
  • rajod1 - Monday, February 1, 2016 - link

    You see you are writing server cpu reviews to punk kids that somehow only think of playing a game on a server. They just do not get it. Babies with computers, maybe this could play mario. These are good for boring server work, database, HyperV, etc. ECC ram. And they are still the best bang for the buck in a used server in 2016.
  • Starglider - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    > You can now use up to two DIMMs at 1333MHz,
    > while the Xeon 5500 would throttle back to
    > 1066MHz if you did this.

    Presumably you mean 'up to two DIMMs per channel'?
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    Not sure about the 2 DIMMs per channel forcing 1066Mhz. We've been ordering Dell R710s with the X5570 and 12x4GB of memory, which runs at 1333Mhz.
  • TurboMax3 - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link

    You are right. I work for Dell, since a couple of months after the launch of the 5500 Xeons we could do 2 DIMM per Channel (DPC) at 1333 MHz. It is a property of the chipset, rather than the CPU.

    Also, going to 3 DPC will clock the memory down to 800 MHz, and this has been available in R710 (and similar products from others) for some time now.

    The 8GB DIMM is getting cheap enough to be quoted without shame. 16 GB DIMMS still cost as much as my car.
  • Navier - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    Do you have information on Nehalem-EX and how that is going to fit in the updated road map with the latest 6 core systems?
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    The Nehalem-EX (probably called the Xeon 7500 series) are for quad socket boxes. From what I've been hearing, they should be released on 3/30. Not sure when the Poweredge R910 and Proliant DL580 G7 will show up though.
  • duploxxx - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link

    it is launched on 30/3 but actually only available mid june, call it a paper launch or whatever you want.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now