Limitations of this report

We are happy that we finally feel comfortable with most of our virtualization testing. We still have to do some in-depth profiling to be completely sure what is going on, but we decided to not wait any longer. This is only the beginning, though. We have tested several other virtualization scenarios (including Windows as Guest OS, Hyper-V as hypervisor, Oracle as database, and so on) but we are still checking the validity of those benchmarks. In other words, we are well aware that this report cannot give you a complete picture; it's only an initial rough draft.

Here are the limitations of our current virtualization testing:

  • Out of all the databases, MySQL has shown the best performance on the AMD platform relative to the Intel platform. This is probably a result of the excellent Opteron and Athlon 64 optimizations in the gcc compiler.
  • We use a 64-bit version of MySQL, and the Intel architectures pay a small penalty when you run a 64-bit database (no macro-op fusion for example). However, as the 64-bit MySQL performs quite a bit better than the 32-bit one, we feel we made the right decision.
  • Our best Opteron is a 95W Opteron 8356, while we used a 130W Xeon X7460 and a 130W Xeon X7350. This is simply a result of what we have had available in the labs in the past months. This problem is easy to solve: the performance of the Opteron 8360SE (125W) will be between 1% and 8% higher, so for those looking at the Opteron 8360SE it is pretty easy to get an idea what this CPU could do.
  • No HPC benchmarking, as we wanted to focus our efforts and time on our first virtualization results. Priorities…

Please keep these limitations in mind.

Conclusion

The third party benchmark numbers are unanimous: servers based on Intel's monster hex-core processor are the best choice when for high-end database/ERP applications. Compared to the previous Xeons, performance has increased by 40% or more while power consumption has dropped. The 6-core Xeon is the clear winner and offers a very nice upgrade path for owners of current Xeon 73xx servers. We even dare to predict that the newest Nehalem based Xeons will not really enter this market before the octal-core Beckton is launched in the second half of 2009.

When it comes to the virtualization market, which is a much larger market (in shipments), it is a very different picture. Where the 6-core CPU extends an existing lead elsewhere, for virtualization the new 45nm Xeon MP comes just in time. The quad-core Opteron has been giving the Xeon 73xx a serious beating, offering up to 24% better performance while using 20-25% less power (X7350 versus 8356). If you prefer to look at CPUs with approximates the same TDP, Opteron was offering about a third more performance while consuming a few Watts less. The hot and power hungry FB-DIMMs do not help in a market where performance/Watt and more memory (higher consolidation ratios) rule, and the Opteron clearly has better virtualization support.

The new 45nm Xeon X7460 brings the virtualized performance/Watt crown back to the Intel camp, and we expect the E7450 (2.4GHz) to offer an even better performance/Watt ratio. After all, the E7450 also has six cores but at a lower TDP. In the very near term, AMD will probably have no other choice than to lower the price of its fastest quad-cores. Nevertheless, the battle for the virtualization market is still not over, as both AMD and Intel have new quad-cores lined up.

Quite a few people gave us assistance with this project, and as always we would like to thank them. Our thanks goes to Sanjay Sharma, Trevor Lawless, Kristof Sehmke, Matty Bakkeren, Damon Muzny, Brent Kerby, Michael Kalodrich and Angela Rosario. A very special thanks to Kaushik Banerjee who pointed out errors in our virtualization benchmarking procedure and Tijl Deneut, who helped me solve the weirdest problems despite the numerous setbacks we encountered in this project.

Power
Comments Locked

34 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - link

    Heh... that's why I love the current IBM commercials.

    "How much will this save us?"
    "It will reduce our power bills by up to 40%."
    "How much did we spend on power?"
    "Millions."
    [Cue happy music....]

    What they neglect to tell you is that in order to achieve the millions of dollars in energy savings, you'll need to spend billions on hardware upgrades first. They also don't tell you whether the new servers are even faster (it's presumed, but that may not be true). Even if your AC costs double the power bills for a server, you're still only looking at something like $800 per year per server, and the server upgrades cost about 20 times as much every three to five years.

    Now, if reduced power requirements on new servers mean you can fit more into your current datacenter, thus avoiding costly expansion or remodeling, that can be a real benefit. There are certainly companies that look at density as the primary consideration. There's a lot more to it than just performance, power, and price. (Support and service comes to mind....)
  • Loknar - Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - link

    Not sure what you mean: "reduced power requirements means you can fit more into your DC". You can fill your slots regardless of power, unless I'm missing something.

    Anyway I agree that power requirement is the last thing we consider when populating our servers. It's good to save the environment, that's all. I don't know about other companies, but for critical servers, we buy the most performing systems, with complete disregard of the price and power consumption; because the cost of DC rental, operation (say, a technician earns more than 2000$ per year, right?) and benefits of performance will outweigh everything. So we're so happy AMD and Intel have such a fruitful competition. (And any respectable IT company is not fooled by IBM's commercial! We only buy OEM (Dell in my case) for their fast 24-hour replacement part service and worry free feeling).
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - link

    I mean that if your DC has a total power and cooling capacity of say 100,000W, you can "only" fit 2000 500W servers in there, or you could fit 4000 250W servers. If you're renting rack space, this isn't a concern - it's only a concern for the owners of the data center itself.

    I worked at a DC for a while for a huge corporation, and I often laughed (or cried) at some of their decisions. At one point the head IT people put in 20 new servers. Why? Because they wanted to! Two of those went into production after a couple months, and the remainder sat around waiting to be used - plugged in, using power, but doing no actual processing of any data. (They had to use up the budget, naturally. Never mind that the techs working at the DC only got a 3% raise and were earning less than $18 per hour; let's go spend $500K on new servers that we don't need!)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now