Benchmarking and systems performance - hosted by Elisabeth Stahl

Elisabeth Stahl

Blog Authors:  ELISABETH STAHL   is Chief Technical Strategist and Executive IT Specialist, IBM Systems and Technology Group, and has been working in systems performance for over 25 years.

  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (2)

1 Joerg_Moellenkamp commented Permalink

Must be really bad, when a student was beaten by a horde of toddlers in squirrel costumes. ;) The performance/core calculation is a really meaningless. IBM tries now to tell the public, that this benchmark shows that Power is still superior, because they have more tpmC per Core. 4.7 times more tpmC per core - to be exact. I could calculate another derivate out of this - Price per Core in the configuration used for the benchmark: $18,051,719 / 384 cores = $47,009/core at Sun and $17,111,788 / 64 cores = $267,371/core for IBM. In the TCO calculation the single core at IBM is 5.6 times more expensive. This is the context you have to know, when you that a single core delivers more performance per core.<div>&nbsp;</div> But both is totally irrelevant for this benchmark. What counts performancewise is the number of TPC-C transactions per minute. Period. When you want to proof the impact of a better single-core performance, use a different benchmark. The business of a customer is doing transactions in his architecture on his complete conglomerate of servers, storage and networking, not doing transactions on a single core. And the customer buy a certain number of cores to do the job, not a single core. For the customer the way to yield a certain level of performance is irrelevant. Cluster or single system? Irrelevant! Fewer fast cores or more slower cores? Irrelevant! Of course the customer must be sure, that he has chosen the right benchmark ... that TPC-C is representative for his or her workload, but that's the real problem of TPC-C.<br />

2 lkocman commented Permalink

I must agree with Joerg. <div>&nbsp;</div> 5times more expensive is 5 times more expensive ...

Add a Comment Add a Comment