OLTP benchmark: Oracle Charbench “Calling Circle”

Operating System: Windows 2008 Enterprise RTM (64 bit)
Software: Oracle 10g Release 2 (10.2) for 64 bit Windows
Benchmark software: Swingbench/Charbench 2.2
Database Size: 9 GB
Typical error margin: 2-2.5%

Calling Circle is an Oracle OLTP benchmark. We test with a database size of 9 GB. To reduce the pressure on our storage system, we increased the SGA size (Oracle buffer in RAM) to 10 GB and the PGA size was set at 1.6 GB. A Calling Circle tests consists of 83% selects, 7% inserts and 10% updates. The “Calling Circle” test is run for 10 minutes. A run is repeated for 6 times and the results of the first run are discarded. The reason is that the disk queue length is sometimes close to 1, while the second run and later run with a DQL (Disk Queue Length) of 0.2 or lower. In this case, it was rather easy to run the CPU’s at 99% load. Since DQL’s were very similar, we could keep our results of the “Nehalem” article. All configurations use 2 sockets.

Oracle Calling Circle

The score of the 2.7 GHz Opteron 2384 tells us that a 2.6 GHz Opteron would score about 231. The two extra cores of the Opteron “Istanbul” 2435 add thus about 27% of performance. That is less than what hyperthreading adds to the score of the Xeon X5570, clearly demonstrating what a valuable weapon Hyperthreading is in these low IPC database workloads. The Xeon X5570 performs 50% faster than AMD’s latest six-core. Even if we take in account that the Opteron 2435 competes with the 10% lower clocked X5550, it is clear that the Xeon X55xx series outperforms the best AMD CPUs by a large margin.

Our Benchmark Methods and Choices Decision Support benchmark: Nieuws.be
POST A COMMENT

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • iocedmyself - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link

    Well something that was failed to be mentioned was that the 2P opteron machine costs about $6700, where as the nehalem 2p machine is very near to $16,000.

    as for power consumption a straight up comparison would be HP380 Xeon and HP 385 Opteron. At idle, both are 140W. With 100% CPU / Ram, 385 is around 300W, 380 (Xeon) is about 450W.

    another thing not discussed here - 4P Istanbul is 70-80% faster than 2P Nehalem, and there is no 4P Nehalem. 8P Istanbul is over 3 times as fast as 2P Nehalem. so until next gen Nehalem, there is no competition in the high end which probably has something to do with istanbul orders being through the roof.

    I also have to wonder if these benchmarks were conducted using one of Intel's little helpful optimized compilers.
    Reply
  • yasbane - Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - link

    would be nice to see some unix or linux benchmarks... Reply
  • riskyburden - Thursday, June 04, 2009 - link

    I might be naive here but surely the majority of these applications are favouring clock speed and no more than two cores, should there not be a bench for those companies that run multiple apps such as SQL and AD or IPFX etc all from one server and make a comparison there. I don't suggest it to be good network practice but that would interest me more. Reply
  • mino - Friday, June 05, 2009 - link

    For this part of SMB market pretty much any dual core CPU will do.

    Their bottleneck is almost allways on the storage side, sometimes with insufficient memory.
    And most also run default install where basic SW tweaks would make 100's percents in performance.
    Reply
  • befair - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    Johan never proves me wrong. Even an article meant to talk about AMD Opteron starts with a good deal of "Intel is the king!" stuff, as usual. Reply
  • alpha754293 - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    What happened to them?

    I would have to loved to have seen what the new 6-core AMDs would be able to do in this arena since it is (presumably) a much more competitive offering than the fastest Xeons all around.
    Reply
  • lopri - Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - link

    A Question: Is the 'snoop-filter' a hardware-based? I read that it can be enabled/disabled via BIOS, and since the cores are same as Shanghai cores.. But my question is, whether it's hardware-based or software-based (BIOS), shouldn't this work for inter-core communication as well if AMD decides to implement it? Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - link

    I have to check, but I am pretty sure it is both. The "uncore" part has changed somewhat on Istanbul.

    "shouldn't this work for inter-core communication as well if AMD decides to implement it"

    Since the L3-cache keeps copies of shared L2-cachelines, I don't think that will help. There is already a very fast way of communicating with little overhead.
    Reply
  • tygrus - Monday, June 01, 2009 - link

    I would like to know the performance difference when using a cell size of 3 not 6 on the 6-core units or of 8 not 4 on Xeon 4Core8Thread ?

    Will have to wait for latter for more raw performance numbers (eg. memory local/system, SPEC CPU, task switching, OS/IO task servicing).

    How long before they update the boards for DDR3 based memory and better IO onboard ?

    It's a pity the ESX 4.0 update hasn't helped AMD .. are the improvements only available for Intel or was it to correct a previous Intel only problem ? What can AMD/partners do to improve performance ?
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - link

    "I would like to know the performance difference when using a cell size of 3 not 6 on the 6-core units?"

    A cell size of 3 will not do any good if your VMs are MP. Eventhough ESX features "relaxed co-scheduling", there might quite a few cases where the Scheduler is not able to use all "slots" as some of vCPUs of the VMs might be behind. From the momemt you use more than 2 vCPUs, you will get situations where only one VM with 2 CPUs is scheduled on a cell of 3 CPUs. 8-cell: I have to try it.

    "How long before they update the boards for DDR3 based memory and better IO onboard ? "

    The AMD's Fiorano platform that will be available in a few weeks should have better I/O (PCIe gen 2) but will still be DDR-2 based.

    DDR-3 CPUs are scheduled for 2010.

    "It's a pity the ESX 4.0 update hasn't helped AMD .. are the improvements only available for Intel or was it to correct a previous Intel only problem ? "

    VMware's docs tell us they that CPU locking goes more quickly and that the scheduler is "cache aware", but most of the biggest improvements are EPT and better support for Hyperthreading.

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now