I've be reading Anandtech articles for a long time and i have to say that this article is so biased that i think it should be retracted. I can't wait for the next pro intel article.
The MySQL and Sun combination attained a result of 712.87 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard running a 64-bit version of MySQL 5.0 and SJSAS 9.0 on Sun Microsystems' Sun Fire(TM) X4100 servers powered by Dual-Core AMD Opteron(TM) processors(1). The result demonstrates superb scalability of the whole solution, as compared to the previous result of 266 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard that was achieved with Single-Core AMD Opteron processors (2). This solution also demonstrated the best database performance, measured in SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard per database core (SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard /DB core), of any competitive submission using less than 20 total cores in database and application tiers. MySQL's SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard /DB core metric surpassed an Oracle-powered result by over 30 percent (3).
MySQL Helps Set World Record in Java Application Server Benchmarks; High-Speed Open Source Software Blaze Past Proprietary Solutions
CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 12, 2006--A popular application server benchmark, featuring a complete open source software stack with MySQL 5.0 database, the Solaris(TM) 10 Operating System, and Sun Java(TM) Systems Application Server 9.0 Platform Edition (Project GlassFish(SM)) has shattered the competition by offering up to 8.6 times lower cost of acquisition than the comparable solution (1,4), according to the benchmark test results published at http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/jAppSer...">http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/jAppSer....
Maintained by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corp. (SPEC(R)), the SPECjAppServer(R)2004 test is a recognized industry standard benchmark used to measure performance of Java EE application server platforms and each of the components that make up the application environment -- including hardware, database software, JDBC drivers, JVM software and the system network. It is designed to model a real-world automotive dealership application, including manufacturing, supply-chain management and an order/inventory system.
"Open Source software can provide dramatic benefits for enterprise IT applications - especially in terms of real performance and TCO," said Ethan O'Rafferty, director of Strategic Alliances for MySQL AB. "We are proud that Solaris 10 is an ideal deployment platform for MySQL 5.0."
The MySQL and Sun combination attained a result of 712.87 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard running a 64-bit version of MySQL 5.0 and SJSAS 9.0 on Sun Microsystems' Sun Fire(TM) X4100 servers powered by Dual-Core AMD Opteron(TM) processors(1). The result demonstrates superb scalability of the whole solution, as compared to the previous result of 266 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard that was achieved with Single-Core AMD Opteron processors (2). This solution also demonstrated the best database performance, measured in SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard per database core (SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard /DB core), of any competitive submission using less than 20 total cores in database and application tiers. MySQL's SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard /DB core metric surpassed an Oracle-powered result by over 30 percent (3).
Buy the Asrock X58-EXTREME ATX LGA1366 DDR3
$182.35
IntroductionIn Q1 of 2006, AMD-based systems accounted for over $1 billion, or one sixth of the x86 server space. The Opteron grew from a 6% market share to 15% market share in the astonishingly short period of only one year. In four socket servers, the Opteron grabbed 48% of the US market, up from 23% last year. What's more, this is not a "US only" phenomenon: the Opteron has a firm grip on 36% of the worldwide four socket market. Bear in mind that less than 4 years ago, AMD was nothing more than a blip on the server CPU radar.
Sun, which was getting strangled by the high volume Intel Xeon and the mighty Itanium, has also made a big comeback. An attractive UltraSparc IV+ with a fast, integrated L2 cache and massive L3 cache keeps the traditional Sparc buyers loyal, while the well-designed Galaxy Opteron based servers are pretty popular and the UltraSparc T1 "throughput CPU" attacks the midrange x86 market.
It's high time for Intel to find a proper response, as the competition is taking the wind out of Intel's server CPU sails. What's the answer? A Xeon based on the Core architecture: Woodcrest. We compared the Core and K8 architectures just a month ago. Memory disambiguation, large OOO buffers and a large but low latency shared L2 cache should make the Core architecture more efficient in server related tasks than any other x86 CPU.
This article compares a Woodcrest based Intel server with its closest rivals: AMD Opteron based servers such as the HP DL385 and MSI K2-102A2M and the UltraSparc T1 based Sun T2000 server.
91 Comments
MySQL Helps Set World Record in Java Application Server Benchmarks: On Opteron by severian64 on Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Axis labels by ChuaChua on Saturday, June 10, 2006
I'm confused about the charts.
What are the numbers on the X and Y axes?
What are the numbers on the X and Y axes?
RE: Axis labels by JohanAnandtech on Sunday, June 11, 2006
"To interpret the graphs below precisely, you must know that the X-axis gives you the number of demanded requests and the Y-axis gives you the actual reply rate of the server. The first points all show the same performance for each server, as each server is capable of responding fast enough. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...
Our testing methods: please read by JohanAnandtech on Friday, June 09, 2006
1. "you use workstaion/budget motherboard against the intel server board. use a sun galaxy or hp proliant. "
No, we do not. We used the MSI K2-102A2M for ALL opteron testing except the one where we tested MySQL with Solaris as the serverworks chipset was not supported by Solaris x86.
Note that this server performed better than the HP DL385, which uses slower memory timings. Using the HP proliant would have resulted in slightly LOWER Opteron numbers not faster!
I don't get that a few people make a big fuzz about the MSI K8N Master2-FAR, as we only use it once, out of necessity as it worked under Solaris. Know that Solaris x86 supports only a limited amount of x86 hardware.
2. About our testing methods: yes, we use our own benchmarks. We'll add some industry standard benchmarks to the mix later. However, Industry benchmarks are what manufacturers optimize for, while our benches come straight out of the realworld, and are what real people are using. The same tests showed the Opteron beating the old Xeon by a pretty big margin, check our previous MySQL results. I don't see why now all of a sudden our tests should be changed
If you feel there are other issues, feel free. I will definitely try to answer any concerns you have.
No, we do not. We used the MSI K2-102A2M for ALL opteron testing except the one where we tested MySQL with Solaris as the serverworks chipset was not supported by Solaris x86.
Note that this server performed better than the HP DL385, which uses slower memory timings. Using the HP proliant would have resulted in slightly LOWER Opteron numbers not faster!
I don't get that a few people make a big fuzz about the MSI K8N Master2-FAR, as we only use it once, out of necessity as it worked under Solaris. Know that Solaris x86 supports only a limited amount of x86 hardware.
2. About our testing methods: yes, we use our own benchmarks. We'll add some industry standard benchmarks to the mix later. However, Industry benchmarks are what manufacturers optimize for, while our benches come straight out of the realworld, and are what real people are using. The same tests showed the Opteron beating the old Xeon by a pretty big margin, check our previous MySQL results. I don't see why now all of a sudden our tests should be changed
If you feel there are other issues, feel free. I will definitely try to answer any concerns you have.
RE: Our testing methods: please read by duploxxx on Friday, June 09, 2006
hmm thx for the reply. thats clear now. seeing all the reactions here on your review.
it seems that the way its build up is far from structured and people do have problems reading it.
you didn't answer my question why some benches are single sock some dual sock... but i quess you are rather busy.
the way you talk as this core is the best thing (not released yet) against a new platform from competition that will be launched at same time... still does make me wonder but anyhow.
your own benchmarks and rather strange OS for benches (with personal tweaking) is still not relevant. Giving results on a far more used platform would be much nicer to compare... but i already have a good idea of the few benches you will be showing in this review on a wintel OS (let's hope i am wrong). youre benches on linux might be straight out of real world, but impossible to verify.
The only comparisson you make are 2 Spec benches and they were probably done also on that nice linux platform.... looking at the figures. but how comes that for one or another reason the opteron is clocked now at 2800 while you have 2400 and 2600 systems?
it seems that the way its build up is far from structured and people do have problems reading it.
you didn't answer my question why some benches are single sock some dual sock... but i quess you are rather busy.
the way you talk as this core is the best thing (not released yet) against a new platform from competition that will be launched at same time... still does make me wonder but anyhow.
your own benchmarks and rather strange OS for benches (with personal tweaking) is still not relevant. Giving results on a far more used platform would be much nicer to compare... but i already have a good idea of the few benches you will be showing in this review on a wintel OS (let's hope i am wrong). youre benches on linux might be straight out of real world, but impossible to verify.
The only comparisson you make are 2 Spec benches and they were probably done also on that nice linux platform.... looking at the figures. but how comes that for one or another reason the opteron is clocked now at 2800 while you have 2400 and 2600 systems?
RE: Our testing methods: please read by JohanAnandtech on Friday, June 09, 2006
Ok, addressing the other issues:
1. Why no dual socket, quadcore in some benches:
the reason is that with the LAMP tests we ended up with a limit in our httperf benchmark: it couldn't measure anything above more than 3000 req/s for some reason. So there is another bottleneck kicking in. So we avoided the bottleneck for now by not testing with quad core. This was happening on both the Opteron as the Woodcrest system.
2. The Gentoo numbers of the previous review that gained 9-10% was a comparison between 1 Dualcore and two dual single Core CPUS. Note that the same review shows only 38% performance increase from one to two CPUs.
3. A few people try to discredit this review in every way possible, I well aware of that. However, even though these benchmarks can't be repeated by other people for obvious reasons (the databases are not available to the public), the benches are in line with what other people have found.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/06/08/int...">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/200...el-woodc...
P. Zaitsev is one of the most respected people when it comes to MySQL performance and is head of performance tuning of MySQL.
1. Why no dual socket, quadcore in some benches:
the reason is that with the LAMP tests we ended up with a limit in our httperf benchmark: it couldn't measure anything above more than 3000 req/s for some reason. So there is another bottleneck kicking in. So we avoided the bottleneck for now by not testing with quad core. This was happening on both the Opteron as the Woodcrest system.
2. The Gentoo numbers of the previous review that gained 9-10% was a comparison between 1 Dualcore and two dual single Core CPUS. Note that the same review shows only 38% performance increase from one to two CPUs.
3. A few people try to discredit this review in every way possible, I well aware of that. However, even though these benchmarks can't be repeated by other people for obvious reasons (the databases are not available to the public), the benches are in line with what other people have found.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/06/08/int...">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/200...el-woodc...
P. Zaitsev is one of the most respected people when it comes to MySQL performance and is head of performance tuning of MySQL.
RE: Our testing methods: please read by ashyanbhog on Monday, June 12, 2006
<Quote>The Gentoo numbers of the previous review that gained 9-10% was a comparison between 1 Dualcore and two dual single Core CPUS. Note that the same review shows only 38% performance increase from one to two CPUs.</Quote>
Correct me if I am wrong. Follow the link below to Anandtech's own earlier benchmarks. Goto the last table on the page and check results of "Dual Dual Core 875" and "Dual Opteron 248" from 5 Concurrencies onwards. The increase is slight, but there is definetly no performance degradation. The earlier review too uses Opterons+Linux+MySQL+InnoDB, the same as this setup used. Why do you get totally different results sets this time around?
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&am...
In the next page of the same review, DB2 shows fanastic gains from 5 Concurrencies onwards when going from Dual Cores to Four Cores. Check the first table under "Benchmarks IBM DB2: Single core versus Dual core". Note results of "Dual Opteron 2.2 hz" and "Dual Dual Core AMD 2.2 Ghz". This too is on linux. DB2 is definetly better suited than MySQL to reflect gains when moving from two core to four core setup.
Was publishing the obviously wrong MySQL results that you got this time necessary?
Despite choosing Gentoo, for the optmization capabaility, you have not chosen to publish the optimizations options used. Gentoo gurus would have verified that the optimizations for each of the processors where fairly chosen. This is not a allegation that you have taken sides, but why hold back some specific info when they are not secretive or proprietery in nature? And yes, I know you have used Gentoo in many previous benchmarks without specifiying the optimizations, but as this review seems to have become conterversial, it will help clear the air a bit. Specifying the options used when you have deviated from the default settings will surely increase credibility of review.articles.
Using a standard, preconfigured and widely available package like Debian, RHEL or SLES in their default settings was another option to ensure a neutral platform.
Cant comment about other parts of the review as I was only interested in the database performance
<Quote>A few people try to discredit this review in every way possible, I well aware of that.</Quote>
Why cant readers of Anandtech question the process used in a review? Afterall its their page views / site visit that brings the ad revenue. Readers tend to have limited time to go thru and comment if they want to. Exaggration may happen when we dont have time to express our doubts in detail. Your comment above was cheap shot.
Still, nice to see that Intel finally has something that can be compared to a Opteron. Good to have a choice, but the 3 year wait was too long.
And thanks for replying about the hardware used.
Correct me if I am wrong. Follow the link below to Anandtech's own earlier benchmarks. Goto the last table on the page and check results of "Dual Dual Core 875" and "Dual Opteron 248" from 5 Concurrencies onwards. The increase is slight, but there is definetly no performance degradation. The earlier review too uses Opterons+Linux+MySQL+InnoDB, the same as this setup used. Why do you get totally different results sets this time around?
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&am...
In the next page of the same review, DB2 shows fanastic gains from 5 Concurrencies onwards when going from Dual Cores to Four Cores. Check the first table under "Benchmarks IBM DB2: Single core versus Dual core". Note results of "Dual Opteron 2.2 hz" and "Dual Dual Core AMD 2.2 Ghz". This too is on linux. DB2 is definetly better suited than MySQL to reflect gains when moving from two core to four core setup.
Was publishing the obviously wrong MySQL results that you got this time necessary?
Despite choosing Gentoo, for the optmization capabaility, you have not chosen to publish the optimizations options used. Gentoo gurus would have verified that the optimizations for each of the processors where fairly chosen. This is not a allegation that you have taken sides, but why hold back some specific info when they are not secretive or proprietery in nature? And yes, I know you have used Gentoo in many previous benchmarks without specifiying the optimizations, but as this review seems to have become conterversial, it will help clear the air a bit. Specifying the options used when you have deviated from the default settings will surely increase credibility of review.articles.
Using a standard, preconfigured and widely available package like Debian, RHEL or SLES in their default settings was another option to ensure a neutral platform.
Cant comment about other parts of the review as I was only interested in the database performance
<Quote>A few people try to discredit this review in every way possible, I well aware of that.</Quote>
Why cant readers of Anandtech question the process used in a review? Afterall its their page views / site visit that brings the ad revenue. Readers tend to have limited time to go thru and comment if they want to. Exaggration may happen when we dont have time to express our doubts in detail. Your comment above was cheap shot.
Still, nice to see that Intel finally has something that can be compared to a Opteron. Good to have a choice, but the 3 year wait was too long.
And thanks for replying about the hardware used.
RE: Our testing methods: please read by zsdersw on Monday, June 12, 2006
quote:
the 3 year wait was too long.
Apparently you have no idea how long it takes to bring a totally new chip to market. This generally takes approximately 5 years.
RE: Our testing methods: please read by BasMSI on Saturday, June 10, 2006
Hahahaha, what balony.....
Aceshardware didn't have problem reaching above 8000 requests on the Dual 844 back in 2003.
The article can be found here: http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000279">>>Click here<<
And you where unable?
Get real.
If you don't know how to setup a server, then stay away from trying to do such.
Aceshardware didn't have problem reaching above 8000 requests on the Dual 844 back in 2003.
The article can be found here: http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000279">>>Click here<<
And you where unable?
Get real.
If you don't know how to setup a server, then stay away from trying to do such.
Follow IT on AnandTech
Latest from AnandTech
HTC Announces Initial Ice Cream Sandwich Rollout Plans
Rambus And NVIDIA Bury The Hatchet, Sign 5 Year Agreement
Windows 8 Consumer Preview Event Scheduled For Feb 29
Google Chrome 17 Hits Stable Channel
More Sandy Bridge E Laptops: Eurocom Panther 4.0 and Maingear Titan 17
AMD Releases Two Llano Based Athlon II X4 CPUs
Hitachi Releases Ultrastar SSD400S.B: 25nm SLC NAND Is Here
Firmware Updates Bring Lion Internet Recovery to 2010 Macs
Google Releases Chrome For Android - Updated
Intel Updates Sandy Bridge Graphics Drivers
Nokia Announces White Lumia 800
Droid 4 Available February 10th for $199
Intel Settles '09 NY Antitrust Case for Only 5 Hours Worth of its Yearly Profit
AT&T Doubles Smartphone Upgrade Fee to $36 After Disastrous Q4
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
Motorola Fails to Score the Hat Trick, Losing to Apple at Last in Germany
Georgia Tech Uses Shape-Memory Alloys to Create Earthquake-Resistant Buildings
Report: Apple to Debut iPad 3 During First Week of March
Tesla Motors Unveils All-Electric "Model X' Crossover
Hackers Have Their Way With Apple Supplier Foxconn
German Appeals Court Approves Galaxy 10.1N, Tells Apple "Deal With It"
Google's Motorola Mobility Purchase Approval Expected Next Week
Quick Note: Kodak Bails on Digital Camera Market
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
Hackers Mug Google's Wallet App on Rooted Android Devices
Google Drive Cloud Storage Service to Launch "Soon"
Lenovo Announces Q3 Financials, Posts Record Profit
Activist Groups Protest Apple Stores in Name of Supplier Worker Treatment in China
Toyota's 50MPG Prius c Hybrid to Start at $18,950
@marcreichman what's insane is that you can get that much compute in blades now as well
@anshelsag haha yeah, too late, clicked the wrong button :)
Will be doing power and perf comparison between the old and new configs over the coming weeks. For now, it's bedtime
That was high-end back in 2006 - 8 cores in a 4U box, now we have 12 in a 2U box
Finally carried our old DB server up to the lab: four socket, dual-core Opteron 880 based HP ProLiant DL585 http://t.co/ftyi8BPF
@ozym4ndias @wilshipley @pmod not really, not internal at least. here's a hint: http://t.co/iv6wXn7I :)
@RandomMegaBytes the 512GB drive won't actually update to the latest firmware, but the 128/256GB drives are very quick
@pmod IVB gives you the same memory bandwidth as SNB, likely see DDR3-1600 in mobile
@wilshipley @pmod remember with Ivy Bridge TDPs don't actually go down, in 2013 that will change though...
@wilshipley @pmod The Pro won't go away entirely, but we will see a trend towards thinner notebooks in general.
Copyright © 1997-2012 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information
reason????? don't make us guess why you don't post these benches