The scope of this test

Our primary objective for this project is quite extensive, so we have narrowed our scope a little more for this article.

Firstly, we focused on single and dual processing systems.

Secondly, we focused on "read" performance. This means that our benchmarks do not try to write information in the tables, but rather, always fetch and report information from one or more tables.

There are two reasons for this:
  1. We narrow our focus to a certain kind of application based on when write performance plays a minor part compared to read performance.
  2. We want to focus on operation, which involves little harddisk activity, and focus on the platform: the processor(s) and the interaction with the memory.
The benchmarks were inspired by the fact that in many cases, people simply search and browse for information on a website, intranet or another RDBMS application.

So, this article is not about a typical large central database of banks that need to handle a large number of transactions, with frequent writes operations. It is more about a server that needs to handle a lot of ad-hoc queries. AnandTech readers who are searching for a certain article, who like to read the news of the day, or who are checking out the Realtime pricing guide are perfect examples of ad-hoc queries.

Other examples of typical "read heavy" applications are data warehousing applications. The write heavy databases in a company send data to a data warehouse during the night to produce statistical data, which in turn is a read-heavy process.

In these cases, a Systems Administrator or database administrator will try to cache as much information as possible in the fast RAM memory. Database applications and SQL Queries tend to be optimised to be "RAM cache friendly".

Considering that even the best harddisk RAID system accesses information in Milliseconds while RAM memory does the same job in Nanoseconds (Nano is one millionth of Milli), making good use of caching and avoiding storage I/O offers superb performance boosts. As a result, storage I/O limited databases are, in many cases, high end database applications that are run on much more expensive machines than the ones which we are discussing in this article.

Lastly, we test on SUSE SLES 8 (SUSE Enterprise Edition) SP3, Linux kernel 2.4.21. Rest assured that a new report with kernel 2.6 will follow. However, we think that the results might still interest a lot of people as the enterprise market does not upgrade as quickly as desktop users. We found SUSE SLES 8 SP3 Kernel 2.4.21 to be a very stable environment for our database tests.

As a final comment before we move to the benchmarks, I have been working with Anand and his great team for a couple of weeks, and together with your feedback, we will make sure that this project improves over time.

A gigantic market The benchmark
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    About SLES9 and NUMA: NUMA is also supported by Linux kernel 2.4.21 and it boosts performance only a tiny bit. The reason are the very speedy HT links which keep latency at a minimum.

    It is still possible that kernel 2.6 NUMA support is far better of course, but I doubt it makes a difference for quad or dual systems as there is only hop in quad systems. With two hops (8 CPUs) from CPU 1 to 8 for example, this will become important.
  • AtaStrumf - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    A TYPO:

    So for now, the Opteron has an advantage still, but it ***can*** /can't/ knock out the Xeon, as it could have a few months ago, before the Xeon Nocona arrived.

  • HardwareD00d - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    There have been enough benchmarks on the web for a long time which show that Opteron generally wipes Xeon's a$$ hands down, and scales far better in multi processor configurations. The latest Xeon is nothing special compared to prior versions and will no doubt preform better mostly due to its increased clock speed. Xeon will never be better than Opteron no matter how much cache and tweaks Intel adds.

    Maybe Intel's next server architecture will be something to woo, but that's a ways off.
  • jshaped - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    as a long-time reader of aceshardware, i'll be the first to welcome Johan here, great first article. keep them coming!!!!
  • HardwareD00d - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    I don't think there are enough variations of the way requests are handled to make a realistic conclusion for either chip. I'm sure you could create a situation where Intel bests AMD in My Sql, and vice versa. This article really needs more benchmarks and more in-depth analysis. Still, it provides enough information to conclude that both Xeon and Opteron have their strengths and weaknesses.
  • mczak - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    Nice read. I really think though you should have used SLES 9. Not only does it use kernel 2.6, but it's also NUMA-aware (and DB2 should specifically support it, though it might not have been released yet). SLES 9 also ought to be faster especially on x86_64 due to newer compiler (not that it would matter much with precompiled databases, but every bit counts...). Though for 2-cpu boxes, NUMA might not be that important - but it's safe to predict a landslide victory for a 4-cpu opteron with NUMA support vs. a 4-cpu xeon box. Xeons simply don't scale to 4 cpus, intel might sell them but they are useless (especially since the Xeon MPs are still limited to 400 (or was that 533?) Mhz FSB.
    A pity though the quad opterons don't support ddr-400. I guess manufacturers decided it's more important to have a boatload of ram slots than fewer slots (with shorter traces) with higher speeds...
    And btw, where are the 90nm Opterons? AMD's latest roadmap shows them as available in 2004, which doesn't leave too much time...
  • bthomas - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    Bogus conclusions about IBM tests IMO. From the

    > If we had published a similar report back in
    > August, the Opteron would enjoyed a landslide
    > victory. Luckily for Intel, Nocona is very
    > competitive and is about 5% faster than the Opteron 250.

    and later in the "conclusion":

    > Nevertheless, AMD cannot sit on its laurels.
    > Intel made a very good comeback with Nocona, as > this 3.6 GHz CPU is just a tiny bit faster in >

    It has not.

    You fail to specify that this is comparing the _32 bit_ mode for the Opteron. IF you compare the Nocoma performance to the Opteron 64 bit sweeps the the Nocona in all tests.

    The true conclusion is that based on the results in the article, for neither of the databases tested do *any* of the Intel processors compete with the Opteron.
  • fitten - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    Randomized benchmarks are hard to verify as well. You could get a "good" distribution that really takes advantage of cache locality while another randomization may be very cache unfriendly. I agree with #5 to a degree. A database that fits entirely inside of RAM isn't very interesting, ultimately.

    Still, I am happy that AnandTech is going down these paths of benchmarking instead of just being about Doom3, HL2, and FarCry like most other sites. I eagerly await further database benchmark articles.
  • PrinceXizor - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    #5 - Since when do top tier e-commerce cites compare to mid-level company database users as the beginning of the article mentioned?

    My company is an engineering firm that does custom electronics. Our database server handles all the transactions for our Inventory/MRP system which is mostly reads. These benchmarks are very appropriate. I wish I could have convinced my boss to go Opteron. Its funny, they had Athlon MP's before and then switched to Xeons when Opteron was out. Go figure.

    Anyway, great article. I'm not IT guy by any stretch, but I enjoyed the article.

  • Jason Clark - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link

    #6, done ages ago..

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now