OLTP benchmark Oracle Charbench “Calling Circle” 

Oracle Charbench Calling Circle
Operating System Windows 2008 Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
Software Oracle 10g Release 2 (10.2) for 64-bit Windows
Benchmark software Swingbench/Charbench 2.2
Database Size: 9GB

 

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

As we noted in our previous article, we work with a relatively small database. The result is that the benchmark doesn't scale well beyond 16 cores. The Opteron 6174 has a 10MB L3 cache for 12 cores, while the Opteron 2435 has 6MB L3 for 6 cores. The amount of cache might explain why the Intel Xeons scale a lot better in this benchmark.  For this kind of OLTP workload is the Opteron 6174 not the right choice. To go back to the car analogy earlier: the muscle car is burning rubber while spinning its wheels, but is not making much progress.

Rendering: Blender 2.5 Alpha 2 SAP S&D 2-Tier
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • zarjad - Friday, April 02, 2010 - link

    I understand that HT can be disabled in BIOS and that some benchmarks don't like HT. Reply
  • elnexus - Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - link

    I can report that one of my customers, performing intensive image processing, found that DISABLING hyper-threading on a Nehalem-based workstation, actually IMPROVED performance considerably.

    It seems that certain applications don't like hyper-threading, while others do. I always recommend that my customers perform sensitivity analyses on their computing tasks with HT on and off, and then use whichever is best.
    Reply
  • tracerburnout - Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - link

    How is it possible that Intel's Xeon X5670 rig returns 19k+ for a score while AMD's magny-cours returns only 2k+?? I only question the results of this benchmark chart because Intel's Xeon X5570 rig returns only around 1k. How can a X5670 be 19x faster than a X5570?? And I doubt the same is true for the magny-cours by being just 10.5% of what the X5670 can do.

    (is there an extra '0' by accident in there?)



    tracerburnout
    proud supporter of AMD, with a few Intel rigs for Linux only
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, April 01, 2010 - link

    No, it is just that Sisoft uses the new AES instructions of West-mere. It is a forward looking benchmark which tests only a small part of a larger website code base. So that 19x faster will probably result in 10 to 20% of the complete website being 19x faster. So the real performance impact will be a lot slower. It is interesting though to see how much faster these dedicated SIMD instructions are on these kinds of workloads. Reply
  • alpha754293 - Thursday, April 01, 2010 - link

    If you guys need help with setting up or running the Fluent/LS-DYNA benchmarks let me know.

    I see that you don't really spend as much time writing or tweaking it as you do with some of the other programs, and that to me is a little concerning only because I don't think that it is showing the true potential of these processors if you run it straight out-of-the-box (especially with Fluent).

    Fluent tends to have a LOT of iterations, but it also tends to short-stroke the CPU (i.e. the time required to complete all of the calculations necessary is less than 1 second and therefore; doesn't make full use of the computational ability.)

    Also, the parallelization method (MPICH2 vs. HP MPI) makes a difference in the results.

    You want to make sure that the CPUs are fully loaded for a period of time such that at each iteration, there should be a noticable dwell time AT 100% CPU load. Otherwise, it won't really demonstrate the computational ability.

    With LS-DYNA, it also makes a difference whether it's SMP parallelization or MPP parallelization as well.
    Reply
  • k_sarnath - Friday, April 02, 2010 - link

    The most baffling part is how linux could engage 12-CPUs much better than windows. I am obviously curious about the OS platform for other tests.. Similary MS SQL was able to scale well on multi-cores... In this context, I am not sure how we can look at the performance numbers... A badly scaling app or OS could show the 12-core one in bad light. Reply
  • OneEng - Saturday, April 03, 2010 - link

    Hi Johan,

    I have followed your articles from the early day's at Ace's and have a good respect for the technical accuracy of your articles.

    It appears that the X5570 scaling between 4 and 8 cores has very little gain in the Oracle Calling Circle benchmark. Furthermore, the 24 cores of MC at 2.2Ghz are way behind. Westmere appears to do quite well, but really should not be able to best 8 cores in the X5570 with all else being equal.

    I have heard some state that the benchmark is thread bound to a low number of threads (don't know if I am buying this), but surely something fishy is going on here.

    It appears that there is either a real world application limit to core scaling on certain types of Oracle database applications (if there are, could you please explain what features an app has when these limits appear), or that the benchmark is flawed in some way.

    I have a good amount of experience in Oracle applications and have usually found that more cores and more memory make Oracle happy. My experience seems at odds with your latest benchmarks.

    Any feedback would be appreciated .... Thanks!
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - link

    I am starting to suspect the same. I am going to dissect the benchmark soon to see what is up. It is not disk related, or at least that surely it is not our biggest problem. Our benchmark might not be far from the truth though, I think Oracle really likes the big L3-cache of the Westmere CPU.

    If you have other ideas, mail at johanATthiswebsiteP
    Reply
  • heliosblitz2 - Wednesday, April 07, 2010 - link

    You wrote
    Test-Setup:
    Xeon Server 1: ASUS RS700-E6/RS4 barebone
    Dual Intel Xeon "Gainestown" X5570 2.93GHz, Dual Intel Xeon “Westmere” X5670 2.93 GHz
    6x4GB (24GB) ECC Registered DDR3-1333

    "Also notice that the new Xeon 5600 handles DDR3-1333 a lot more efficiently. We measured 15% higher bandwidth from exactly the same DDR3-1333 DIMMs compared to the older Xeon 5570."

    That is not exactly the reason, I think.
    The reason ist you populated the second memory-bank in both setups.
    Intel specification:
    Westmere-1333MHZ-CPUs run with 1333 MHZ with second bank populated while
    Nehalem-1333MHZ-CPUs run with 1066 MHZ with second bank populated

    That could be updated.

    Compare tech docs on Intel site: datasheet Xeon 5500 Part 2 and datasheet Xeon 5600 Part 2

    Arnold.
    Reply
  • gonerogue - Saturday, April 10, 2010 - link

    The Viper is a V10 and most certainly not a traditional muscle car ;) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now