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

Comments (3)

1 localhost commented Permalink

Bobby,this is a dangerous game.how dare you compare WebSphere and WebLogic while J2EE HW is different?BTW, BEA marketing does the same, but I would expect better from a technical blog.Reality is vendors are doing everything possible to confuse poor users, always choosing a different HW (even when dealing with Intel chips) to avoid fair J2EE servers comparisons.I will play devil's advocate for a moment:On TPC-C, P5 beats Opteron or Xeon by a factor of 2, meaning one P5 core performs twice as much tpmC as a Xeon core.So there is obviosily a chip architecture advantage.I am talking here about the best chip available at one point in time; chip frequency is irrelevent.Let's have a look at SpecJBB to eliminate the Java factor:- P5 at 16 400 BOPS/core- Opteron at 11 100 BOPS/core- Xeon at 12 100 BOPS/coreThis leaves a 1.5x advantage to P5, less than the 2x on TPC-C.This can be attributed to (1) the chip architecture or (2) the JVM. I would favor (1). You cannot be optimized on every workload. P5 is designed to win on TPC-style workloads.Looking now at SpecJAppserver, we have:- P5 at 91 JOPS/core with WAS- Opteron at 89 JOPS/coreEquality instead of the P5 1.5x advantage on SpecJBB.So all things considered, WebLogic is 1.5 times better than WebSphere on equivalent HW, based on your figures.Less than the 2x actor that BEA marketing claims, but still significant.Please, prove me wrong :-)Notes: I "like" both IBM and BEA, and even Jboss and Jonas, I just dislike vendors distorting the figures.PS: personal email is welcome if you would prefer (jacques.talbot@teamlog.com)

2 localhost commented Permalink

Jacques: I think calling performance stats a "dangerous game" is being a bit dramatic. Apparently you feel strongly about this; you made the same post on TSS.In any event, you seem to feel that such performance stats are suspicious and easily manipulated; I tend to agree, and take them with a grain of salt. However, you're battling stats and figures with more starts and figures, which just makes me equally suspicious of what you have to say as well.As for "how dare you compare" and "based on your figures," you're dramatizing again. None of this material is mine. I'm just linking to info that my readers may find interesting, not only from IBM but the original source and in this case from competitors (i.e. BEA) as well, and providing overview and some quick thoughts on what I think it all means. This is what blogs do. Give my readers some credit; they can figure out how much to rely on all this info.

3 localhost commented Permalink

You apparently prefer to discuss style than substanceNever mind ...Jacques

Add a Comment Add a Comment