Performance Report PRIMERGY BX920 S3 - Fujitsu · fp 6 SPEC fp 2006 ors 6 SPEC fp SPEC fp 6 ors SPEC fp SPEC fp 6 Xeon E5-2403 2 43.2 44.8 1 87.3 89.8 2 170 175 Xeon E5-2407 2 49.4

WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY BX920 S3

© Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012 Page 1 (44)

WHITE PAPER FUJITSU PRIMERGY SERVERS PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY BX920 S3

This document contains a summary of the benchmarks executed for the PRIMERGY BX920 S3.

The PRIMERGY BX920 S3 performance data are compared with the data of other PRIMERGY models and discussed. In addition to the benchmark results, an explanation has been included for each benchmark and for the benchmark environment.

Version

1.1

2012-11-30

WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY BX920 S3 VERSION: 1.1 2012-11-30

Page 2 (44) © Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012

Contents

Document history ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Technical data .................................................................................................................................................... 4

SPECcpu2006 .................................................................................................................................................... 6

SPECjbb2005 ................................................................................................................................................... 12

SPECpower_ssj2008 ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Disk-I/O ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

OLTP-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

vServCon .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

VMmark V2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

STREAM ........................................................................................................................................................... 39

LINPACK .......................................................................................................................................................... 41

Literature ........................................................................................................................................................... 43

Contact ............................................................................................................................................................. 44



Document history

Version 1.0

New:

Technical data SPECcpu2006

Measurements with processors of Xeon series E5-2400 SPECjbb2005

Measurement with Xeon E5-2470 SPECpower_ssj2008

Measurement with Xeon E5-2470 and 1 × SSD SATA 3G 32GB SLC HOT PLUG 2.5" EP OLTP-2

Results for Xeon E5-2400 processor series vServCon

Results for Xeon E5-2400 processor series VMmark V2

Measurement with Xeon E5-2470 STREAM

Measurements with Xeon E5-2400 processor series LINPACK

Measurements with Xeon E5-2400 processor series

Version 1.1

New:

Disk I/O Measurements with ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SATA)‖, ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SAS)‖, ―PY SAS RAID HDD Module‖ and ―PY SAS RAID HDD Module w/o cache‖ controllers

Updated:

SPECcpu2006 Additional SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp2006 measurements with processors of Xeon series E5-2400

OLTP-2 New result for Xeon E5-2470

STREAM Measurements with Xeon E5-2420 and E5-2450L

LINPACK Measurement with Xeon E5-2430L



Technical data

Decimal prefixes according to the SI standard are used for measurement units in this white paper (e.g. 1 GB = 10

9 bytes). In contrast, these prefixes should be interpreted as binary prefixes (e.g. 1 GB = 2

30 bytes) for

the capacities of caches and storage modules. Separate reference will be made to any further exceptions where applicable.

Model PRIMERGY BX920 S3

Form factor Server blade

Chipset Intel C600 series

Number of sockets 2

Number of processors orderable 1 or 2

Processor type Intel Xeon series E5-2400

Number of memory slots 12 (6 per processor)

Maximum memory configuration 384 GB

Onboard LAN controller 2 × 10 Gbit/s CNA

Onboard HDD controller Controller with RAID 0 or RAID 1 for up to 2 × 2.5˝ SATA HDDs, optional: SAS Enabling Key for Onboard Ports for up to 2 × 2.5˝ SAS HDDs

PCI slots 2 × PCI-Express 3.0 x8

Max. number of internal hard disks 2

PRIMERGY BX920 S3



Processors (since system release)

Processor

Co

res

Th

rea

ds Cache

[MB]

QPI Speed

[GT/s]

Processor Frequency

[Ghz]

Max. Turbo

Frequency at full load

[Ghz]

Max. Turbo

Frequency

[Ghz]

Max. Memory

Frequency

[MHz]

TDP

[Watt]

Xeon E5-2403 4 4 10 6.40 1.80 n/a n/a 1066 80

Xeon E5-2407 4 4 10 6.40 2.20 n/a n/a 1066 80

Xeon E5-2420 6 12 15 7.20 1.90 2.20 2.40 1333 95

Xeon E5-2430L 6 12 15 7.20 2.00 2.30 2.50 1333 60

Xeon E5-2430 6 12 15 7.20 2.20 2.50 2.70 1333 95

Xeon E5-2440 6 12 15 7.20 2.40 2.70 2.90 1333 95

Xeon E5-2450L 8 16 20 8.00 1.80 2.00 2.30 1600 70

Xeon E5-2450 8 16 20 8.00 2.10 2.60 2.90 1600 95

Xeon E5-2470 8 16 20 8.00 2.30 2.80 3.10 1600 95

Memory modules (since system release)

Memory module

Cap

ac

ity [

GB

]

Ran

ks

Bit

wid

th o

f th

e

me

mo

ry c

hip

s

Fre

qu

en

cy

[M

Hz]

Lo

w v

olt

ag

e

Lo

ad

red

uc

ed

Reg

iste

red

EC

C

2GB (1x2GB) 1Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC (2 GB 1Rx8 PC3L-12800E)

2 1 8 1600

4GB (1x4GB) 2Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC (4 GB 2Rx8 PC3L-12800E)

4 2 8 1600

4GB (1x4GB) 1Rx4 L DDR3-1333 R ECC (4 GB 1Rx4 PC3L-10600R)

4 1 4 1333


4 1 4 1600


4 2 8 1600


8 2 4 1333


8 2 4 1600

16GB (1x16GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC (16 GB 4Rx4 PC3L-10600L)

16 4 4 1333


16 2 4 1600

32GB (1x32GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC (32 GB 4Rx4 PC3L-10600L)

32 4 4 1333

Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions.

Detailed technical information is available in the data sheet PRIMERGY BX920 S3.

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=33efe617-f9a6-44cf-ac8a-ab5eadfe03f0



SPECcpu2006

Benchmark description

SPECcpu2006 is a benchmark which measures the system efficiency with integer and floating-point operations. It consists of an integer test suite (SPECint2006) containing 12 applications and a floating-point test suite (SPECfp2006) containing 17 applications. Both test suites are extremely computing-intensive and concentrate on the CPU and the memory. Other components, such as Disk I/O and network, are not measured by this benchmark.

SPECcpu2006 is not tied to a special operating system. The benchmark is available as source code and is compiled before the actual measurement. The used compiler version and their optimization settings also affect the measurement result.

SPECcpu2006 contains two different performance measurement methods: the first method (SPECint2006 or SPECfp2006) determines the time which is required to process single task. The second method (SPECint_rate2006 or SPECfp_rate2006) determines the throughput, i.e. the number of tasks that can be handled in parallel. Both methods are also divided into two measurement runs, ―base‖ and ―peak‖ which differ in the use of compiler optimization. When publishing the results the base values are always used; the peak values are optional.

Benchmark Arithmetics Type Compiler optimization

Measurement result

Application

SPECint2006 integer peak aggressive Speed single-threaded

SPECint_base2006 integer base conservative

SPECint_rate2006 integer peak aggressive Throughput multi-threaded

SPECint_rate_base2006 integer base conservative

SPECfp2006 floating point peak aggressive Speed single-threaded

SPECfp_base2006 floating point base conservative

SPECfp_rate2006 floating point peak aggressive Throughput multi-threaded

SPECfp_rate_base2006 floating point base conservative

The measurement results are the geometric average from normalized ratio values which have been determined for individual benchmarks. The geometric average - in contrast to the arithmetic average - means that there is a weighting in favour of the lower individual results. Normalized means that the measurement is how fast is the test system compared to a reference system. Value ―1‖ was defined for the SPECint_base2006-, SPECint_rate_base2006, SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp_rate_base2006 results of the reference system. For example, a SPECint_base2006 value of 2 means that the measuring system has handled this benchmark twice as fast as the reference system. A SPECfp_rate_base2006 value of 4 means that the measuring system has handled this benchmark some 4/[# base copies] times faster than the reference system. ―# base copies‖ specify how many parallel instances of the benchmark have been executed.

Not every SPECcpu2006 measurement is submitted by us for publication at SPEC. This is why the SPEC web pages do not have every result. As we archive the log files for all measurements, we can prove the correct implementation of the measurements at any time.



Benchmark environment

Measurement series 1 (measurements with Xeon E5-2400 processor series)

System Under Test (SUT)

Hardware

Enclosure PRIMERGY BX900 S1


Processor Xeon E5-2400 processor series

Memory 1 processor: 6 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 2 processors: 12 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC

Software

BIOS settings SPECint_base2006, SPECint2006, SPECfp_base2006, SPECfp2006: Frequency Floor Override = Enable Processors other than Xeon E5-2403, E5-2407:

Hyper-Threading = Disable

Operating system Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2

Operating system settings

echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/redhat_transparent_hugepage/enabled

Compiler Xeon E5-2407: Intel C++/Fortran Compiler 12.1.0.255 All others: Intel C++/Fortran Compiler 12.1.0.293

Measurement series 2 (Additional SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp2006 measurements with processors of Xeon series E5-2400


Hardware




Memory 12 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC

Software

BIOS settings Frequency Floor Override = Enable



echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/redhat_transparent_hugepage/enabled

Compiler Intel C++/Fortran Compiler 12.1.0.293




Benchmark results

In terms of processors the benchmark result depends primarily on the size of the processor cache, the support for Hyper-Threading, the number of processor cores and on the processor frequency. In the case of processors with Turbo mode the number of cores, which are loaded by the benchmark, determines the maximum processor frequency that can be achieved. In the case of single-threaded benchmarks, which largely load one core only, the maximum processor frequency that can be achieved is higher than with multi-threaded benchmarks (see the processor table in the section "Technical Data").

The improved SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp2006 results are in the case of the Xeon E5-2407 due to the newer compiler version, and for the other processors due to the changed BIOS setting for Hyper-Threading (see Benchmark environment).

Processor

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

ce

sso

rs

SP

EC

int_

ba

se2

006

SP

EC

int2

00

6

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

ce

sso

rs

SP

EC

int_

rate

_b

as

e20

06

SP

EC

int_

rate

200

6

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

ce

sso

rs

SP

EC

int_

rate

_b

as

e20

06

SP

EC

int_

rate

200

6

Xeon E5-2403 2 26.6 28.0 1 85.5 89.2 2 167 174

Xeon E5-2407 2 32.2 33.7 1 102 106 2 199 208

Xeon E5-2420 2 35.6 37.9 1 183 191 2 352 369

Xeon E5-2430L 2 36.9 39.3 1 189 198 2 366 388

Xeon E5-2430 2 39.5 42.0 1 204 212 2 395 411

Xeon E5-2440 2 42.1 44.9 1 215 225 2 420 438

Xeon E5-2450L 2 35.1 37.7 1 223 233 2 426 445

Xeon E5-2450 2 43.5 46.8 1 275 288 2 535 556

Xeon E5-2470 2 46.5 49.9 1 285 298 2 564 589

Processor

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

ce

sso

rs

SP

EC

fp_

ba

se2

00

6

SP

EC

fp2

00

6

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

ce

sso

rs

SP

EC

fp_

rate

_b

as

e20

06

SP

EC

fp_

rate

20

06

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

ce

sso

rs

SP

EC

fp_

rate

_b

as

e20

06

SP

EC

fp_

rate

20

06

Xeon E5-2403 2 43.2 44.8 1 87.3 89.8 2 170 175

Xeon E5-2407 2 49.4 50.4 51.6 52.1 1 98.2 101 2 193 198

Xeon E5-2420 2 55.5 58.8 57.9 61.3 1 148 152 2 282 290

Xeon E5-2430L 2 57.7 60.3 60.1 62.8 1 151 155 2 293 301

Xeon E5-2430 2 60.7 64.5 63.3 67.1 1 158 162 2 311 318

Xeon E5-2440 2 64.1 67.6 66.6 70.3 1 164 168 2 324 332

Xeon E5-2450L 2 55.9 59.8 58.5 62.7 1 176 181 2 328 338

Xeon E5-2450 2 65.9 72.3 68.7 75.6 1 200 206 2 392 403

Xeon E5-2470 2 69.2 76.5 72.2 79.8 1 203 209 2 405 417



The following four diagrams illustrate the throughput of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 in comparison to its predecessor PRIMERGY BX920 S2, in their respective most performant configuration.

SPECint_base2006

SPECint2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PRIMERGY BX920 S22 x Xeon X5672

PRIMERGY BX920 S32 x Xeon E5-2470

42.4

46.5

44.9

49.9

SPECint_rate_base2006

SPECint_rate2006

0

100

200

300

400

500

600



367

564392

589

SPECcpu2006: integer performance PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920 S2

SPECcpu2006: integer performance PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920 S2



SPECfp_base2006

SPECfp2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



58.2

76.5

62.0

79.8

SPECfp_rate_base2006

SPECfp_rate2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450



254

405

262

417

SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920 S2

SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920 S2



The two diagrams below reflect how the performance of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 scales from one to two processors when using the Xeon E5-2470.

SPECint_rate_base2006

SPECint_rate2006

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 x Xeon E5-2470 2 x Xeon E5-2470

285

564

298

589

SPECfp_rate_base2006

SPECfp_rate2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 x Xeon E5-2470 2 x Xeon E5-2470

203

405

209

417

SPECcpu2006: integer performance PRIMERGY BX920 S3 (2 sockets vs. 1 socket)

SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY BX920 S3 (2 sockets vs. 1 socket)



SPECjbb2005


SPECjbb2005 is a Java business benchmark that focuses on the performance of Java Server platforms. SPECjbb2005 is essentially a modernized SPECjbb2000. The main differences are:

The transactions have become more complex in order to cover a greater functional scope. The working set of the benchmark has been enlarged to the extent that the total system load has

increased. SPECjbb2000 allows only one active Java Virtual Machine instance (JVM) whereas SPECjbb2005

permits several instances, which in turn achieves greater closeness to reality, particularly with large systems.

On the software side SPECjbb2005 primarily measures the performance of the JVM used with its just-in-time compiler as well as their thread and garbage collection implementation. Some aspects of the operating system used also play a role. As far as hardware is concerned, it measures the efficiency of the CPUs and caches, the memory subsystem and the scalability of shared memory systems (SMP). Disk and network I/O are irrelevant.

SPECjbb2005 emulates a 3-tier client/server system that is typical for modern business process applications with the emphasis on the middle-tier system:

Clients generate the load, consisting of driver threads, which on the basis of TPC-C benchmark generate OLTP accesses to a database without thinking times.

The middle tier system implements the business processes and the updating of the database. The database takes on the data management and is emulated by Java objects that are in the

memory. Transaction logging is implemented on an XML basis.

The major advantage of this benchmark is that it includes all three tiers that run together on a single host. The performance of the middle-tier is measured. Large-scale hardware installations are thus avoided and direct comparisons between the SPECjbb2005 results from the various systems are possible. Client and database emulation are also written in Java.

SPECjbb2005 only needs the operating system as well as a Java Virtual Machine with J2SE 5.0 features.

The scaling unit is a warehouse with approx. 25 MB Java objects. Precisely one Java thread per warehouse executes the operations on these objects. The business operations are assumed by TPC-C:

New Order Entry Payment Order Status Inquiry Delivery Stock Level Supervision Customer Report

However, these are the only features SPECjbb2005 and TPC-C have in common. The results of the two benchmarks are not comparable.

SPECjbb2005 has 2 performance metrics:

bops (business operations per second) is the overall rate of all business operations performed per second.

bops/JVM is the ratio of the first metrics and the number of active JVM instances.

In comparisons of various SPECjbb2005 results, both metrics must be specified.

The following rules, according to which a compliant benchmark run has to be performed, are the basis for these three metrics:

A compliant benchmark run consists of a sequence of measuring points with an increasing number of warehouses (and thus of threads) with the number in each case being increased by one warehouse. The run is started at one warehouse up through 2*MaxWh, but not less than 8 warehouses. MaxWh is the number of warehouses with the highest rate per second the benchmark expects. Per default the benchmark equates MaxWh with the number of CPUs visible by the operating system.

The metric bops is the arithmetic average of all measured operation rates with MaxWh warehouses up to 2*MaxWh warehouses.





Hardware



Processor 2 × Xeon E5-2470


Software

BIOS settings Hardware Prefetch = Disable

Adjacent Sector Prefetch = Disable

DCU Streamer Prefetch = Disable

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SP1


„Using the local security settings console, "lock pages in memory" was enabled for the user running the benchmark.‖

JVM Oracle Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM on Windows, version 1.6.0_30

JVM settings start /HIGH /AFFINITY [0xFFFF,0xFFFF0000] /B java -server -Xmx24g -Xms24g -Xmn22g -XX:ParallelGCThreads=16 -XX:SurvivorRatio=60 -XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=90 -XX:InlineSmallCode=3900 -XX:MaxInlineSize=270 -XX:FreqInlineSize=2500 -XX:AllocatePrefetchDistance=256 -XX:AllocatePrefetchLines=4 -XX:InitialTenuringThreshold=12 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=15 -XX:LoopUnrollLimit=45 -XX:+UseCompressedStrings -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UseLargePages -XX:+UseParallelOldGC -XX:-UseAdaptiveSizePolicy


Benchmark results

SPECjbb2005 bops = 1327292

SPECjbb2005 bops/JVM = 663646

The following diagrams illustrate the throughput of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 in comparison to its predecessor PRIMERGY BX920 S2, in their respective most performant configuration.

SPECjbb2005 bops:

PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. BX920 S2 SPECjbb2005 bops:

PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. BX920 S2



SPECpower_ssj2008


SPECpower_ssj2008 is the first industry-standard SPEC benchmark that evaluates the power and performance characteristics of a server. With SPECpower_ssj2008 SPEC has defined standards for server power measurements in the same way they have done for performance.

The benchmark workload represents typical server-side Java business applications. The workload is scalable, multi-threaded, portable across a wide range of platforms and easy to run. The benchmark tests CPUs, caches, the memory hierarchy and scalability of symmetric multiprocessor systems (SMPs), as well as the implementation of Java Virtual Machine (JVM), Just In Time (JIT) compilers, garbage collection, threads and some aspects of the operating system.

SPECpower_ssj2008 reports power consumption for servers at different performance levels — from 100% to ―active idle‖ in 10% segments — over a set period of time. The graduated workload recognizes the fact that processing loads and power consumption on servers vary substantially over the course of days or weeks. To compute a power-performance metric across all levels, measured transaction throughputs for each segment are added together and then divided by the sum of the average power consumed for each segment. The result is a figure of merit called ―overall ssj_ops/watt‖. This ratio provides information about the energy efficiency of the measured server. The defined measurement standard enables customers to compare it with other configurations and servers measured with SPECpower_ssj2008. The diagram shows a typical graph of a SPECpower_ssj2008 result.

The benchmark runs on a wide variety of operating systems and hardware architectures and does not require extensive client or storage infrastructure. The minimum equipment for SPEC-compliant testing is two networked computers, plus a power analyzer and a temperature sensor. One computer is the System Under Test (SUT) which runs one of the supported operating systems and the JVM. The JVM provides the environment required to run the SPECpower_ssj2008 workload which is implemented in Java. The other computer is a ―Control & Collection System‖ (CCS) which controls the operation of the benchmark and captures the power, performance and temperature readings for reporting. The diagram provides an overview of the basic structure of the benchmark configuration and the various components.





Hardware (Shared)


Power Supply Unit 3 × Power supply 2880W CSCI platinum

Network Switch 1 × Eth Switch/IBP 1Gb 18/6

Hardware (per node)

Number of servers 18



Memory 6 × 4GB (1x4GB) 2Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC

Network-Interface Onboard LAN-Controller (1 port used)

Disk-Subsystem Onboard HDD-Controller 1 × SSD SATA 3G 32GB SLC HOT PLUG 2.5" EP

Software

BIOS BIOS: R1.4.0 FW: 6.23

BIOS settings Adjacent Sector Prefetch = Disabled

Hardware Prefetch = Disabled

DCU Streamer Prefetch = Disabled

DDR Performance = Low-Voltage optimized

USB Configuration = Disable External Ports

QPI Link Speed = 6.4GT/s

P-State coordination = SW_ANY

Intel Virtualization Technology = Disabled

ASPM Support = Auto



Using the local security settings console, ―lock pages in memory‖ was enabled for the user running the benchmark.

Power Management: Enabled (―Fujitsu Enhanced Power Settings‖ power plan)

Set ―Turn off hard disk after = 1 Minute‖ in OS.

Benchmark was started via Windows Remote Desktop Connection.

JVM Oracle Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM on Windows, version 1.6.0_30

JVM settings start /affinity [0x3,0xC,0x30,0xC0,0x300,0xC00,0x3000,0xC000,0x30000,0xC0000,0x300000,0xC00000,0x3000000,0xC000000,0x30000000,0xC00000000] -server -Xmx1024m -Xms1024m -Xmn853m -XX:ParallelGCThreads=2 -XX:SurvivorRatio=60 -XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=90 -XX:InlineSmallCode=3900 -XX:MaxInlineSize=270 -XX:FreqInlineSize=2500 -XX:AllocatePrefetchDistance=256 -XX:AllocatePrefetchLines=4 -XX:InitialTenuringThreshold=12 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=15 -XX:LoopUnrollLimit=45 -XX:+UseCompressedStrings -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UseLargePages -XX:+UseParallelOldGC




Benchmark results

The PRIMERGY BX920 S3 achieved the following result:

SPECpower_ssj2008 = 4,677 overall ssj_ops/watt

The adjoining diagram shows the result of the configuration described above. The red horizontal bars show the performance to power ratio in ssj_ops/watt (upper x-axis) for each target load level tagged on the y-axis of the diagram. The blue line shows the run of the curve for the average power consumption (bottom x-axis) at each target load level marked with a small rhomb. The black vertical line shows the benchmark result of 4,677 overall ssj_ops/watt for the PRIMERGY BX920 S3. This is the quotient of the sum of the transaction throughputs for each load level and the sum of the average power consumed for each measurement interval.

The following table shows the benchmark results for the throughput in ssj_ops, the power consumption in watts and the resulting energy efficiency for each load level.

Performance Power Energy Efficiency

Target Load ssj_ops Average Power (W) ssj_ops/watt

100% 23,884,347 4,965 4,810

90% 21,545,239 4,284 5,029

80% 19,131,418 3,498 5,470

70% 16,752,658 2,896 5,784

60% 14,353,206 2,462 5,830

50% 11,968,288 2,176 5,500

40% 9,577,156 1,989 4,816

30% 7,182,867 1,803 3,984

20% 4,789,561 1,618 2,960

10% 2,399,599 1,426 1,682

Active Idle 0 1,014 0

∑ssj_ops / ∑power = 4,677

The PRIMERGY BX920 S3 achieved a new class record with this result, thus surpassing the best result of the competition by 1% (date: April 14, 2012). Thus, the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 proves itself to be the most energy-efficient blade server in the world. For the latest SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark results, visit: http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/results.

http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/results



The adjoining chart shows the comparison to the competition and makes the advantage of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 in the field of energy efficiency evident. Compared to the best result of the competition in the blade server category, the Dell PowerEdge M620, the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 achieves a result with 1% higher energy efficiency.

The following diagram shows for each load level the power consumption (on the right y-axis) and the throughput (on the left y-axis) of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 compared to the predecessor the PRIMERGY BX920 S2.

SPECpower_ssj2008: PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. competition

SPECpower_ssj2008: PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920 S2



Thanks to the new Sandy-Bridge micro-architecture the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 has in comparison with the PRIMERGY BX920 S2 a substantially higher throughput and considera-bly lower power consumption.

Both result in an overall increase in energy efficiency in the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 of 45%.

SPECpower_ssj2008 overall ssj_ops/watt: PRIMERGY BX920 S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920 S2



Disk-I/O


Performance measurements of disk subsystems for PRIMERGY servers are used to assess their performance and enable a comparison of the different storage connections for PRIMERGY servers. As standard, these performance measurements are carried out with a defined measurement method, which models the hard disk accesses of real application scenarios on the basis of specifications.

The essential specifications are:

Share of random accesses / sequential accesses Share of read / write access types Block size (kB) Number of parallel accesses (# of outstanding I/Os)

A given value combination of these specifications is known as ―load profile‖. The following five standard load profiles can be allocated to typical application scenarios:

In order to model applications that access in parallel with a different load intensity, the ―# of Outstanding I/Os‖ is increased, starting with 1, 3, 8 and going up to 512 (from 8 onwards in increments to the power of two).

The measurements of this document are based on these standard load profiles.

The main results of a measurement are:

Throughput [MB/s] Throughput in megabytes per second Transactions [IO/s] Transaction rate in I/O operations per second Latency [ms] Average response time in ms

The data throughput has established itself as the normal measurement variable for sequential load profiles, whereas the measurement variable ―transaction rate‖ is mostly used for random load profiles with their small block sizes. Data throughput and transaction rate are directly proportional to each other and can be transferred to each other according to the formula

Data throughput [MB/s] = Transaction rate [IO/s] × Block size [MB]

Transaction rate [IO/s] = Data throughput [MB/s] / Block size [MB]

This section specifies hard disk capacities on a basis of 10 (1 TB = 1012

bytes) while all other capacities, file sizes, block sizes and throughputs are specified on a basis of 2 (1 MB/s = 2

20 bytes/s).

All the details of the measurement method and the basics of disk I/O performance are described in the white paper ―Basics of Disk I/O Performance‖.

Standard load profile

Access Type of access Block size [kB]

Application

read write

File copy random 50% 50% 64 Copying of files

File server random 67% 33% 64 File server

Database random 67% 33% 8 Database (data transfer) Mail server

Streaming sequential 100% 0% 64 Database (log file), Data backup; Video streaming (partial)

Restore sequential 0% 100% 64 Restoring of files

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=65781a00-556f-4a98-90a7-7022feacc602




All the measurement results discussed in this chapter were determined using the hardware and software components listed below:


Hardware

Controller 1 × ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SATA)‖ 1 × ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SAS)‖ 1 × ―PY SAS RAID HDD Module‖ 1 × ―PY SAS RAID HDD Module w/o cache‖

Drive 2 × BC HDD SATA 6 Gbit/s 2.5 7200 rpm 1 TB

2 × EP HDD SAS 6 Gbit/s 2.5 15000 rpm 146 GB

2 × EP SSD SATA 6 Gbit/s 2.5 200 GB MLC

2 × EP SSD SAS 6 Gbit/s 2.5 200 GB MLC

Software

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2

Administration software

ServerView RAID Manager 5.5.2

Initialization of RAID arrays

RAID arrays are initialized before the measurement with an elementary block size of 64 kB (―stripe size‖)

File system NTFS

Measuring tool Iometer 27.07.2006

Measurement data Measurement files of 32 GB with 1 – 8 hard disks; 64 GB with 9 – 16 hard disks; 128 GB with 17 or more hard disks

Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions.



Benchmark results

The results presented here are designed to help you choose the right solution from the various configuration options of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 in the light of disk-I/O performance. The selection of suitable components and the right settings of their parameters is important here. These two aspects should therefore be dealt with as preparation for the discussion of the performance values.

Components

The hard disks are the first essential component. If there is a reference below to ―hard disks‖, this is meant as the generic term for HDDs (―hard disk drives‖, in other words conventional hard disks) and SSDs (―solid state drives‖, i.e. non-volatile electronic storage media). When selecting the type of hard disk and number of hard disks you can move the weighting in the direction of storage capacity, performance, security or price. In order to enable a pre-selection of the hard disk types – depending on the required weighting – the hard disk types for PRIMERGY servers are divided into three classes:

―Economic‖ (ECO): low-priced hard disks ―Business Critical‖ (BC): very failsafe hard disks ―Enterprise‖ (EP): very failsafe and very high-performance hard disks

The following table is a list of the hard disk types that have been available for the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 since system release.

Drive class

Data medium type

Interface Form factor

krpm

Business Critical HDD SATA 6G 2.5" 7.2

Enterprise HDD SAS 6G 2.5" 10, 15

Enterprise SSD SATA 6G 2.5" -

Enterprise SSD SAS 6G 2.5" -

Mixed drive configurations of SAS and SATA hard disks in one system are permitted, unless they are excluded in the configurator for special hard disk types.

The SATA-HDDs offer high capacities right up into the terabyte range at a very low cost. The SAS-HDDs have shorter access times and achieve higher throughputs due to the higher rotational speed of the SAS-HDDs (in comparison with the SATA-HDDs). SAS-HDDs with a rotational speed of 15 krpm have better access times and throughputs than comparable HDDs with a rotational speed of 10 krpm. The 6G interface has in the meantime established itself as the standard among the SAS-HDDs.

Of all the hard disk types SSDs offer on the one hand by far the highest transaction rates for random load profiles, and on the other hand the shortest access times. In return, however, the price per gigabyte of storage capacity is substantially higher.

More detailed performance statements about hard disk types are available in the white paper ―Single Disk Performance‖.

The maximum number of hard disks in the system depends on the system configuration. The following table lists the essential cases.

Form factor

Interface Connection

type

Number of PCIe

controllers

Maximum number of hard disks

2.5" SATA 3G, SAS 3G direct 0 2

2.5" SATA 6G, SAS 6G direct 1 2

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0e30cb69-44db-4cd5-92a7-d38bacec6a99




After the hard disks the RAID controller is the second performance-determining key component. In the case of these controllers the ―modular RAID‖ concept of the PRIMERGY servers offers a plethora of options to meet the various requirements of a wide range of different application scenarios.

The following table summarizes the most important features of the available RAID controllers of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3. A short alias is specified here for each controller, which is used in the subsequent list of the performance values.

Controller name Alias Cache Supported interfaces

Max. # disks in the system

RAID levels in the system

BBU/ FBU

LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SATA)

Patsburg A - SATA 3G - 2 × 2.5" 0, 1 -/-

LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SAS)

Patsburg B - SATA 3G SAS 3G

- 2 × 2.5" 0, 1 -/-

PY SAS RAID HDD Module LSI2208-512 512 MB SATA 3G/6G SAS 3G/6G

PCIe 2.0 x8

2 × 2.5" 0, 1 -/

PY SAS RAID HDD Module w/o cache

LSI2208-Lite - SATA 3G/6G SAS 3G/6G

PCIe 2.0 x8

2 × 2.5" 0, 1 -/-

The onboard RAID controller is implemented in the chipset Intel C600 on the motherboard of the server and uses the CPU of the server for the RAID functionality. This controller is a simple solution that does not require a PCIe slot. In addition to the invariably available connection option of SATA hard disks, the additional SAS functionality can be activated via an ―SAS enabling key‖.

System-specific interfaces

The interfaces of a controller to the motherboard and to the hard disks have in each case specific limits for data throughput. These limits are listed in the following table. The minimum of these two values is a definite limit, which cannot be exceeded. This value is highlighted in bold in the following table.

Controller alias

Effective in the configuration Connection via expander # Disk

channels Limit for throughput of disk interface

PCIe version

PCIe width

Limit for throughput of PCIe interface

Patsburg A 2 × SATA 3G 487 MB/s - - - -

Patsburg B 2 × SAS 3G 487 MB/s - - - -

LSI2208-512 2 × SAS 6G 973 MB/s 2.0 x8 3433 MB/s -

LSI2208-Lite 2 × SAS 6G 973 MB/s 2.0 x8 3433 MB/s -

More details about the RAID controllers of the PRIMERGY systems are available in the white paper ―RAID Controller Performance‖.

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e2489893-cab7-44f6-bff2-7aeea97c5aef




Settings

In most cases, the cache of the hard disks has a great influence on disk-I/O performance. This is particular valid for HDDs. It is frequently regarded as a security problem in case of power failure and is thus switched off. On the other hand, it was integrated by hard disk manufacturers for the good reason of increasing the write performance. For performance reasons it is therefore advisable to enable the hard disk cache. This is particular valid for SATA-HDDs. The performance can as a result increase more than tenfold for specific access patterns and hard disk types. More information about the performance impact of the hard disk cache is available in the document ―Single Disk Performance‖. To prevent data loss in case of power failure you are recommended to equip the system with a UPS.

In the case of controllers with a cache there are several parameters that can be set. The optimal settings can depend on the RAID level, the application scenario and the type of data medium. If the controller cache is enabled, the data temporarily stored in the cache should be safeguarded against loss in case of power failure. Suitable accessories are available for this purpose (e.g. a BBU or FBU).

For the purpose of easy and reliable handling of the settings for RAID controllers and hard disks it is advisable to use the RAID-Manager software ―ServerView RAID‖ that is supplied for PRIMERGY servers. All the cache settings for controllers and hard disks can usually be made en bloc – specifically for the application – by using the pre-defined modi ―Performance‖ or ―Data Protection‖. The ―Performance‖ mode ensures the best possible performance settings for the majority of the application scenarios.

More information about the setting options of the controller cache is available in the white paper ―RAID Controller Performance‖.

Performance values

In general, disk-I/O performance of a RAID array depends on the type and number of hard disks, on the RAID level and on the RAID controller. If the limits of the system-specific interfaces are not exceeded, the statements on disk-I/O performance are therefore valid for all PRIMERGY systems. This is why all the performance statements of the document ―RAID Controller Performance‖ also apply for the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 if the configurations measured there are also supported by this system.

The performance values of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 are listed in table form below, specifically for different RAID levels, access types and block sizes. Substantially different configuration versions are dealt with separately.

The performance values in the following tables use the established measurement variables, as already mentioned in the subsection Benchmark description. Thus, transaction rate is specified for random accesses and data throughput for sequential accesses. To avoid any confusion among the measurement units the tables have been separated for the two access types.

The table cells contain the maximum achievable values. This has three implications: On the one hand hard disks with optimal performance were used (the components used are described in more detail in the subsection Benchmark environment). Furthermore, cache settings of controllers and hard disks, which are optimal for the respective access scenario and the RAID level, are used as a basis. And ultimately each value is the maximum value for the entire load intensity range (# of outstanding I/Os).

In order to also visualize the numerical values each table cell is highlighted with a horizontal bar, the length of which is proportional to the numerical value in the table cell. All bars shown in the same scale of length have the same color. In other words, a visual comparison only makes sense for table cells with the same colored bars.

Since the horizontal bars in the table cells depict the maximum achievable performance values, they are shown by the color getting lighter as you move from left to right. The light shade of color at the right end of the bar tells you that the value is a maximum value and can only be achieved under optimal prerequisites. The darker the shade becomes as you move to the left, the more frequently it will be possible to achieve the corresponding value in practice.







Random accesses (performance values in IO/s):

Sequential accesses (performance values in MB/s):

At full configuration with powerful hard disks (configured as RAID 0) the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 achieves a throughput of up to 662 MB/s for sequential load profiles and a transaction rate of up to 30042 IO/s for typical, random application scenarios.

RA

ID

Co

ntr

olle

r

Ha

rd d

isk

typ

e

Fo

rm f

ac

tor

#D

isk

s

SS

Ds

ra

nd

om

64

kB

blo

ck

s

67

% r

ea

d

[IO

/s]

Configuration

version

RA

ID le

ve

l

HD

Ds

ra

nd

om

8 k

B b

loc

ks

67

% r

ea

d

[IO

/s]

HD

Ds

ra

nd

om

64

kB

blo

ck

s

67

% r

ea

d

[IO

/s]

SS

Ds

ra

nd

om

8 k

B b

loc

ks

67

% r

ea

d

[IO

/s]

2 1 550 447 16828 3934

2 0 587 299 22723 5233

2 1 804 694 17736 3916

2 0 981 546 24397 5272

2 1 1109 863 20201 4362

2 0 1197 601 29608 6236

2 1 877 744 20405 4377

2 0 1192 604 30042 6347

Patsburg BEP SAS HDD

EP SAS SSD2.5"

Patsburg ABC SATA HDD

EP SATA SSD2.5"

LSI2208-512EP SAS HDD

EP SAS SSD2.5"

LSI2208-LiteEP SAS HDD

EP SAS SSD2.5"

RA

ID

Co

ntr

olle

r

Ha

rd d

isk

typ

e

Fo

rm f

ac

tor

#D

isk

s

SS

Ds

se

qu

en

tia

l

64

kB

blo

ck

s

10

0%

wri

te

[MB

/s]

Configuration

version

RA

ID le

ve

l

HD

Ds

se

qu

en

tia

l

64

kB

blo

ck

s

10

0%

re

ad

[MB

/s]

HD

Ds

se

qu

en

tia

l

64

kB

blo

ck

s

10

0%

wri

te

[MB

/s]

SS

Ds

se

qu

en

tia

l

64

kB

blo

ck

s

10

0%

re

ad

[MB

/s]

2 1 112 108 511 179

2 0 215 214 509 389

2 1 199 192 504 180

2 0 390 386 502 371

2 1 355 194 680 169

2 0 389 386 662 416

2 1 328 191 676 174

2 0 389 383 651 403

Patsburg ABC SATA HDD

EP SATA SSD2.5"

Patsburg BEP SAS HDD

EP SAS SSD2.5"

LSI2208-512EP SAS HDD

EP SAS SSD2.5"

LSI2208-LiteEP SAS HDD

EP SAS SSD2.5"



OLTP-2


OLTP stands for Online Transaction Processing. The OLTP-2 benchmark is based on the typical application scenario of a database solution. In OLTP-2 database access is simulated and the number of transactions achieved per second (tps) determined as the unit of measurement for the system.

In contrast to benchmarks such as SPECint and TPC-E, which were standardized by independent bodies and for which adherence to the respective rules and regulations are monitored, OLTP-2 is an internal benchmark of Fujitsu. OLTP-2 is based on the well-known database benchmark TPC-E. OLTP-2 was designed in such a way that a wide range of configurations can be measured to present the scaling of a system with regard to the CPU and memory configuration.

Even if the two benchmarks OLTP-2 and TPC-E simulate similar application scenarios using the same load profiles, the results cannot be compared or even treated as equal, as the two benchmarks use different methods to simulate user load. OLTP-2 values are typically similar to TPC-E values. A direct comparison, or even referring to the OLTP-2 result as TPC-E, is not permitted, especially because there is no price-performance calculation.

Further information can be found in the document Benchmark Overview OLTP-2.


The measurement set-up is symbolically illustrated below:

Application Server

Tier A Tier B

Clients

Database Server Disk

subsystem


Driver

Network

Network

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e6f7a4c9-aff6-4598-b199-836053214d3f



Database Server (Tier B)

Hardware


Memory 1 processor: 6 × 32GB (1x32GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC 2 processors: 12 × 32GB (1x32GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC

Network interface 2 × onboard LAN 1 Gb/s

Disk subsystem RAID 0 (OS) Operating system and database application

RAID 1 (LOG) Sequential access, optimized to short response times

RAID 5 (data) Random access, optimized to throughput

Software


Database Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SP1

Application Server (Tier A)

Hardware

Model 1 × PRIMERGY RX200 S6

Processor 2 × Xeon X5647

Memory 12 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3

Network interface 2 × onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 2 × Dual Port LAN 1Gb/s

Disk subsystem 1 × 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive

Software

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard

Client

Hardware



Memory 24 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3

Network interface 2 × onboard LAN 1 Gb/s

Disk subsystem 1 × 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive

Software

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard

Benchmark OLTP-2 Software EGen version 1.12.0

Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions.



Benchmark results

Database performance greatly depends on the configuration options with CPU, memory and on the connectivity of an adequate disk subsystem for the database. In the following scaling considerations for the processors we assume that both the memory and the disk subsystem has been adequately chosen and is not a bottleneck.

A guideline in the database environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more important than the speed of the memory accesses. This why a configuration with a total memory of 384 GB was considered for the measurements with two processors and a configuration with a total memory of 192 GB for the measurements with one processor. Both memory configurations have memory access of 1333 MHz, which however is limited to 1066 MHz with the processors Xeon E5-2403 and E5-2407. Further information about memory performance can be found in the White Paper Memory Performance of Xeon E5-2400 (Sandy Bridge-EN) Based Systems.

The following diagram shows the OLTP-2 transaction rates that can be achieved with one and two processors of the Intel Xeon E5-2400 series.

It is evident that a wide performance range is covered by the variety of released processors. If you compare the OLTP-2 value of the processor with the lowest performance (Xeon E5-2403) with the value of the processor with the highest performance (Xeon E5-2470), the result is a 3.4-fold increase in performance.

237.61

283.14

500.83

520.75

562.02

597.59

606.12

761.21

802.47

426.46

508.17

898.88

934.63

1008.68

1072.52

1087.84

1366.19

1440.24

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

E5-2403 - 4 Core

E5-2407 - 4 Core

E5-2420 - 6 Core, HT

E5-2430L - 6 Core, HT

E5-2430 - 6 Core, HT

E5-2440 - 6 Core, HT

E5-2450L - 8 Core, HT

E5-2450 - 8 Core, HT

E5-2470 - 8 Core, HT

OLTP-2 tps

2CPUs 384GB RAM

1CPU 192GB RAM

tpsbold: measured

cursive: calculated HT: Hyper-Threading

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=4bf85b37-fd9c-44a2-8593-3a913e007bd5




Based on the results achieved the processors can be divided into different performance groups:

The start is made with Xeon E5-2403 and E5-2407 as processors with four cores, but without Hyper-Threading and without turbo mode. These configurations also have a lower memory frequency with 1066 MHz than the following configurations with the more powerful processors.

The 6-core processors are all Hyper-Threading-capable, have with 7.20 GT/s a higher QPI speed than the group of 4-core processors with 6.40 GT/s and they have a 50% larger L3 cache of 15 MB. Due to the graduated CPU clock frequencies an OLTP performance of between 898.88 tps (2 × Xeon E5-2420) and 1072.52 (2 × Xeon E5-2440) is achieved.

The group of processors with eight cores, a QPI speed of 8.00 GT/s and a 20 MB L3 cache is to be found at the upper end of the performance scale. The configuration with the most powerful processors of this group (2 × Xeon E5-2470) achieves the highest OLTP-2 value with 1440.24 tps.

If you compare the maximum achievable OLTP-2 values of the current system generation with the values that were achieved on the predecessor systems, the result is an increase of about 19%.

Current System BX920 S3

Predecessor System BX920 S2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

+ ~ 19%

tps

Current System Predecessor System

Maximum OLTP-2 tps

Comparison of system generations

2 × X5675

144 GB 2 × E5-2470

384 GB



vServCon


vServCon is a benchmark used by Fujitsu Technology Solutions to compare server configurations with hypervisor with regard to their suitability for server consolidation. This allows both the comparison of systems, processors and I/O technologies as well as the comparison of hypervisors, virtualization forms and additional drivers for virtual machines.

vServCon is not a new benchmark in the true sense of the word. It is more a framework that combines already established benchmarks (or in modified form) as workloads in order to reproduce the load of a consolidated and virtualized server environment. Three proven benchmarks are used which cover the application scenarios database, application server and web server.

Each of the three application scenarios is allocated to a dedicated virtual machine (VM). Add to these a fourth machine, the so-called idle VM. These four VMs make up a ―tile‖. Depending on the performance capability of the underlying server hardware, you may as part of a measurement also have to start several identical tiles in parallel in order to achieve a maximum performance score.

Each of the three vServCon application scenarios provides a specific benchmark result in the form of application-specific transaction rates for the respective VM. In order to derive a normalized score, the individual benchmark results for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. The resulting relative performance values are then suitably weighted and finally added up for all VMs and tiles. The outcome is a score for this tile number.

Starting as a rule with one tile, this procedure is performed for an increasing number of tiles until no further significant increase in this vServCon score occurs. The final vServCon score is then the maximum of the vServCon scores for all tile numbers. This score thus reflects the maximum total throughput that can be achieved by running the mix defined in vServCon that consists of numerous VMs up to the possible full utilization of CPU resources. This is why the measurement environment for vServCon measurements is designed in such a way that only the CPU is the limiting factor and that no limitations occur as a result of other resources.

The progression of the vServCon scores for the tile numbers provides useful information about the scaling behavior of the ―System under Test‖.

Moreover, vServCon also documents the total CPU load of the host (VMs and all other CPU activities) and, if possible, electrical power consumption.

A detailed description of vServCon is in the document: Benchmark Overview vServCon.

Application scenario Benchmark No. of logical CPU cores Memory

Database Sysbench (adapted) 2 1.5 GB

Java application server SPECjbb (adapted, with 50% - 60% load) 2 2 GB

Web server WebBench 1 1.5 GB

System Under Test

… …

Tile n

Tile 3

Tile 2

Tile 1

Database VM

Web VM

Idle VM

Java VM

Database VM

Web VM

Idle VM

Java VM

Database VM

Web VM

Idle VM

Java VM Database

VM Web VM

Idle VM

Java VM

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=b953d1f3-6f98-4b93-95f5-8c8ba3db4e59






Hardware




Memory 1 processor: 6 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 2 processors: 12 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC

Network interface 1 × Emulex 0Cl11102-LOM 2-p OneConnect 10Gb NIC (be3)

Disk subsystem 1 × PY FC Mezz. Card 8Gb 2 Port (MC-FC82E, LPe12000 based)

ETERNUS DX80 storage systems:

Each tile: 50 GB LUN

Each LUN: RAID 0 with 2 × Seagate ST3300657SS disks (15 krpm)

Software

Operating system VMware ESX 5.0.0 Build 469512

Load generator (incl. Framework controller)

Hardware (Shared)

Enclosure PRIMERGY BX900

Hardware

Model 18 × PRIMERGY BX920 S1 server blades


Memory 12 GB

Network interface 3 × 1 Gbit/s LAN

Software

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise with Hyper-V

Multiple 1Gb or 10Gb

networks

Load generators

Server Disk subsystem


Framework

controller



Load generator VM (per tile 3 load generator VMs on various server blades)

Hardware

Processor 1 × logical CPU

Memory 512 MB


Software

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition


Benchmark results

The PRIMERGY dual-socket systems dealt with here are based on Intel Xeon series E5-2400 processors. The features of the processors are summarized in the section ―Technical data‖.

The available processors of these systems with their results can be seen in the following table.

Processor #Tiles Score

Xe

on

E5

-24

00

Se

rie

s 4 Cores

E5-2403 4 3.18

E5-2407 4 3.81

6 Cores HT, TM

E5-2420 7 7.10

E5-2430L 7 7.36

E5-2430 8 7.87

E5-2440 8 8.39

8 Cores HT, TM

E5-2450L 8 8.62

E5-2450 8 10.9

E5-2470 8 11.7

HT = Hyper-Threading, TM = Turbo Mode

These PRIMERGY dual-socket systems are very suitable for application virtualization thanks to the progress made in processor technology. Compared with a system based on the previous processor generation an approximate 26% higher virtualization performance can be achieved (measured in vServCon score in their maximum configuration).

The relatively large performance differences between the processors can be explained by their features. The values scale on the basis of the number of cores, the size of the L3 cache and the CPU clock frequency and as a result of the features of Hyper-Threading and turbo mode, which are available in most processor types. Furthermore, the data transfer rate between processors (―QPI Speed‖) also determines performance. As a matter of principle, the memory access speed also influences performance. A guideline in the virtualization environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more important than the speed of the memory accesses.

More information about the topic ―Memory Performance‖ and QPI architecture can be found in the White Paper Memory Performance of Xeon E5-2400 (Sandy Bridge-EN) Based Systems.




E5-2

403

E5-2

407

E5-2

420

E5-2

430L

E5-2

430

E5-2

440

E5-2

450L

E5-2

450

E5-2

470

4 4 7 7 8 8 8 8 8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fin

al v

Serv

Co

n S

co

reThe first diagram compares the virtualization performance values that can be achieved with the processors reviewed here.

The Xeon E5-2403 and E5-2407 as the processors with four cores only make the start, as they have to manage without Hyper-Threading (HT) and turbo mode (TM). In principle, these weakest processors are only to a limited extent suitable for the virtualization environment.

A further increase in performance is achieved by the processors with six cores, which support both Hyper-Threading and the turbo mode (Xeon E5-2420, E5-2430L, E5-2430 and E5-2440).

In addition to the number of cores, the L3 cache and the data transfer rate make a considerable contribution to the respective increase in performance in the 8-core versions compared with the 6-core versions.

Within a group of processors with the same number of cores scaling can be seen via the CPU clock frequency.

Until now we have looked at the virtualization performance of a fully configured system. However, with a server with two sockets the question also arises as to how good performance scaling is from one to two processors. The better the scaling, the lower the overhead usually caused by the shared use of resources within a server. The scaling factor also depends on the application. If the server is used as a virtualization platform for server consolidation, the system scales with a factor of 1.95. When operated with two processors, the system thus almost achieves twice the performance as with one processor, as is illustrated in the diagram opposite using the processor version Xeon E5-2470 as an example.

6.0

0@

4 ti

les

11.7

0@

8 ti

les

0

5

10

15

1 x E5-2470 2 x E5-2470

× 1.95

Fin

al v

Serv

Co

n S

co

re

Xeon E5-2400 Processor Series #Tiles

8 Core 6 Core 4 Core



1.8

9

3.7

6

5.3

0

6.1

2

6.8

2

7.0

2

7.1

0

1.8

0

3.5

7

5.1

8

6.5

1

7.4

3

8.1

4

8.5

8

8.6

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%E5-2420 E5-2450L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

vS

erv

Co

n s

co

re

The next diagram illustrates the virtualization performance for increasing numbers of VMs based on the Xeon E5-2420 (6-Core) and E5-2450L (8-Core) processors. The respective CPU loads of the host have also been entered. The number of tiles with optimal CPU load is typically at about 90%; beyond that you have overload, which is where virtualization performance no longer increases, or sinks again.

In addition to the increased number of physical cores, Hyper-Threading, which is supported by almost all Xeon processors of the E5-2400 series, is an additional reason for the high number of VMs that can be operated. As is known, a physical processor core is consequently divided into two logical cores so that the number of cores available for the hypervisor is doubled. This standard feature thus generally increases the virtualization performance of a system.

The scaling curves for the number of tiles as seen in the previous diagram are specifically for systems with Hyper-Threading. 16 physical and thus 32 logical cores are available with the Xeon E5-2450L processors; approximately four of them are used per tile (see Benchmark description). This means that a parallel use of the same physical cores by several VMs is avoided up to a maximum of about four tiles. That is why the performance curve in this range scales almost ideal. For the quantities above the growth is flatter up to CPU full utilization.

The previous diagram examined the total performance of all application VMs of a host. However, studying the performance from an individual application VM viewpoint is also interesting. This information is in the previous diagram. For example, the total optimum is reached in the above Xeon E5-2450L situation with 24 application VMs (eight tiles, not including the idle VMs); the low load case is represented by three application VMs (one tile, not including the idle VM). Remember: the vServCon score for one tile is an average value across the three application scenarios in vServCon. This average performance of one tile drops when changing from the low load case to the total optimum of the vServCon score - from 1.80 to 8.62/8=1.08, i.e. to 60%. The individual types of application VMs can react very differently in the high load situation. It is thus clear that in a specific situation the performance requirements of an individual application must be balanced against the overall requirements regarding the numbers of VMs on a virtualization host.

#Tiles

---- CPU Util %



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2008E5420

2.50 GHz4C

2009E5540

2.53 GHz4C

2011E5649

2.53 GHz6C

2012E5-2470

2.30 GHz8C

2008E5420

2.50 GHz4C

2009E5540

2.53 GHz4C

2011E5649

2.53 GHz6C

2012E5-2470

2.30 GHz8C

vS

erv

Co

n S

co

re

Year CPU

Freq.#Cores

× 2.02

× 1.47

× 1.54

× 1.30

The virtualization-relevant progress in processor technology since 2008 has an effect on the one hand on an individual VM and, on the other hand, on the possible maximum number of VMs up to CPU full utilization. The following comparison shows the proportions for both types of improvements. Four systems are compared with approximately the same processor frequency: a system from 2008 with 2 × Xeon E5420, a system from 2009 with 2 × Xeon E5540, a system from 2011 with 2 × Xeon E5649 and a current system with 2 × Xeon E5-2470.

The clearest performance improvements arose from 2008 to 2009 with the introduction of the Xeon 5500 processor generation (e. g. via the feature ―Extended Page Tables‖ (EPT)

1). One sees an increase of the vServCon score by a factor of

1.30 with a few VMs (one tile).

With full utilization of the systems with VMs there was an increase by a factor of 2.02. The one reason was the performance increase that could be achieved for an individual VM (see score for a few VMs). The other reason was that more VMs were possible with total optimum (via Hyper-Threading). However, it can be seen that the optimum was ―bought‖ with a triple number of VMs with a reduced performance of the individual VM.

Where exactly is the technology progress between 2009 and 2012? The performance for an individual VM in low-load situations has basically remained the same for the processors compared here with approximately the same clock frequency but with different cache size and speed of memory connection. The decisive progress is in the higher number of physical cores and – associated with it – in the increased values of pure performance (factor 1.47 and 1.54 in the diagram).

We must explicitly point out that the increased virtualization performance as seen in the score cannot be completely deemed as an improvement for one individual VM. More than approximately 30% to 50% increased throughput compared to an identically clocked processor of the Xeon 5400 generation from 2008 is not possible here. Performance increases in the virtualization environment since 2009 are mainly achieved by increased VM numbers due to the increased number of available logical or physical cores.

1 EPT accelerates memory virtualization via hardware support for the mapping between host and guest memory addresses.

2012 BX920 S3

2011 BX920 S2

2009 BX920 S1

2008 -

Few VMs (1 Tile)

Virtualization relevant improvements

Score at optimum Tile count



VMmark V2


VMmark V2 is a benchmark developed by VMware to compare server configurations with hypervisor solutions from VMware regarding their suitability for server consolidation. In addition to the software for load generation, the benchmark consists of a defined load profile and binding regulations. The benchmark results can be submitted to VMware and are published on their Internet site after a successful review process. After the discontinuation of the proven benchmark ―VMmark V1‖ in October 2010, it has been succeeded by ―VMmark V2‖, which requires a cluster of at least two servers and covers data center functions, like Cloning and Deployment of virtual machines (VMs), Load Balancing, as well as the moving of VMs with vMotion and also Storage vMotion.

VMmark V2 is not a new benchmark in the actual sense. It is in fact a framework that consolidates already established benchmarks, as workloads in order to simulate the load of a virtualized consolidated server environment. Three proven benchmarks, which cover the application scenarios mail server, Web 2.0, and e-commerce were integrated in VMmark V2.

Each of the three application scenarios is assigned to a total of seven dedicated virtual machines. Then add to these an eighth VM called the ―standby server‖. These eight VMs form a ―tile‖. Because of the performance capability of the underlying server hardware, it is usually necessary to have started several identical tiles in parallel as part of a measurement in order to achieve a maximum overall performance.

A new feature of VMmark V2 is an infrastructure component, which is present once for every two hosts. It measures the efficiency levels of data center consolidation through VM Cloning and Deployment, vMotion and Storage vMotion. The Load Balancing capacity of the data center is also used (DRS, Distributed Resource Scheduler).

The result of VMmark V2 is a number, known as a ―score‖, which provides information about the performance of the measured virtualization solution. The score reflects the maximum total consolidation benefit of all VMs for a server configuration with hypervisor and is used as a comparison criterion of various hardware platforms.

This score is determined from the individual results of the VMs and an infrastructure result. Each of the five VMmark V2 application or front-end VMs provides a specific benchmark result in the form of application-specific transaction rates for each VM. In order to derive a normalized score the individual benchmark results for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. The resulting dimensionless performance values are then averaged geometrically and finally added up for all VMs. This value is included in the overall score with a weighting of 80%. The infrastructure workload is only present in the benchmark once for every two hosts; it determines 20% of the result. The number of transactions per hour and the average duration in seconds respectively are determined for the score of the infrastructure workload components.

In addition to the actual score, the number of VMmark V2 tiles is always specified with each VMmark V2 score. The result is thus as follows: ―Score@Number of Tiles‖, for example ―4.20@5 tiles‖.

A detailed description of VMmark V2 is available in the document Benchmark Overview VMmark V2.

Application scenario Load tool # VMs

Mail server LoadGen 1

Web 2.0 Olio client 2

E-commerce DVD Store 2 client 4

Standby server (IdleVMTest) 1

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=2b61a08f-52f4-4067-bbbf-dc0b58bee1bd






Hardware (Shared)


Network Switch 2 × PRIMERGY BX900 CB Eth Switch/IBP 10Gb 18/8 1 × PRIMERGY BX900 CB Eth Switch/IBP 1Gb 36/8+2

Hardware

Number of servers 2



Memory 192 GB: 12 × 16 GB (1x16GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC

Network interface 1 × PY Eth Mezz Card 1Gb 4 Port (Intel 82575EB)

1 × Emulex 0Cl11102-LOM 2-p OneConnect 10Gb NIC (be3)

Disk subsystem 1 × PY FC Mezz. Card 8Gb 2 Port (MC-FC82E, LPe12000 based)

ETERNUS DX80 S1 and S2 storage systems:

Each tile: 241 GB

Each DX80: RAID 0 with several LUNs

Total: 128 disks (incl. SSDs)

Software

BIOS Version V4.6.5.1 R1.4.0

BIOS settings See details

Operating system VMware ESX 4.1.0 U2 Build 502767


ESX settings: see details

Multiple

1Gb or 10Gb networks

Load Generators incl. Prime Client and

Datacenter Management

Server

Server(s) Storage System

System under Test (SUT)

vMotion

network

Clients & Management



Prime Client/Datacenter Management Server (DMS)

Hardware (Shared)


Network Switch 1 × PRIMERGY BX600 GbE Switch Blade 30/12

Hardware

Model 1 × server blade PRIMERGY BX620 S4


Memory 4 GB


Software

Operating system Prime Client: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition SP2, KB955839

DMS: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2, KB955839

Load generator

Hardware



Memory 512 GB

Network interface 1 × 1 Gbit/s LAN 2 × 10 Gbit/s LAN

Software

Operating system VMware ESX 4.1.0 U2 Build 502767

Load generator VM (per tile 1 load generator VM)

Hardware

Processor 4 × logical CPU

Memory 4 GB


Software

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2

Details

See disclosure http://www.vmware.com/a/assets/vmmark/pdf/2012-05-15-Fujitsu-BX920S3.pdf


http://www.vmware.com/a/assets/vmmark/pdf/2012-05-15-Fujitsu-BX920S3.pdf



Benchmark results

On May 15, 2012 Fujitsu achieved with a PRIMERGY BX920 S3 with Xeon E5-2470 processors and VMware ESX 4.1.0 U2 a VMmark V2 score of ―9.55@10 tiles‖ in a system configuration with a total of 2 × 16 processor cores and when using two identical servers in the ―System under Test‖ (SUT). With this result the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 is in the official VMmark V2 ranking the most powerful 2-socket server with processors of the Xeon E5-2400 series in a ―matched pair‖ configuration consisting of two identical hosts (valid as of benchmark results publication date).

The current VMmark V2 results as well as the detailed results and configuration data are available at http://www.vmware.com/a/vmmark/.

The processors used, which with a good hypervisor setting could make optimal use of their processor features, were the essential prerequisites for achieving the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 result. These features include Hyper-Threading. All this has a particularly positive effect during virtualization.

All VMs, their application data, the host operating system as well as additionally required data were on a powerful fibre channel disk subsystem from ETERNUS DX80 systems. As far as possible, the configuration of the disk subsystem takes the specific requirements of the benchmark into account. The use of SSDs (Solid State Disk) in the powerful ETERNUS DX80 S2 resulted in further advantages in response times of the hard disks used.

The network connection of the load generators and the infrastructure workload connection between the hosts were implemented with the 10Gb LAN ports.

All the components used were optimally attuned to each other.

http://www.vmware.com/a/vmmark/



STREAM


STREAM is a synthetic benchmark that has been used for many years to determine memory throughput and which was developed by John McCalpin during his professorship at the University of Delaware. Today STREAM is supported at the University of Virginia, where the source code can be downloaded in either Fortran or C. STREAM continues to play an important role in the HPC environment in particular. It is for example an integral part of the HPC Challenge benchmark suite.

The benchmark is designed in such a way that it can be used both on PCs and on server systems. The unit of measurement of the benchmark is GB/s, i.e. the number of gigabytes that can be read and written per second.

STREAM measures the memory throughput for sequential accesses. These can generally be performed more efficiently than accesses that are randomly distributed on the memory, because the CPU caches are used for sequential access.

Before execution the source code is adapted to the environment to be measured. Therefore, the size of the data area must be at least four times larger than the total of all CPU caches so that these have as little influence as possible on the result. The OpenMP program library is used to enable selected parts of the program to be executed in parallel during the runtime of the benchmark, consequently achieving optimal load distribution to the available processor cores.

During implementation the defined data area, consisting of 8-byte elements, is successively copied to four types, and arithmetic calculations are also performed to some extent.

Type Execution Bytes per step Floating-point calculation per step

COPY a(i) = b(i) 16 0

SCALE a(i) = q × b(i) 16 1

SUM a(i) = b(i) + c(i) 24 1

TRIAD a(i) = b(i) + q × c(i) 24 2

The throughput is output in GB/s for each type of calculation. The differences between the various values are usually only minor on modern systems. In general, only the determined TRIAD value is used as a comparison.

The measured results primarily depend on the clock frequency of the memory modules; the CPUs influence the arithmetic calculations. The accuracy of the results is approximately 5%.

This chapter specifies throughputs on a basis of 10 (1 GB/s = 109 Byte/s).



Hardware



Processor 2 processors of Xeon E5-2400 processor series


Software

BIOS settings Hyper-Threading = Disabled



echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/redhat_transparent_hugepage/enabled

Compiler Intel C Compiler 12.1

Benchmark Stream.c Version 5.9




Benchmark results

Processor Cores Processor Frequency

[Ghz]

Max. Memory Frequency

[MHz]

TRIAD

[GB/s]

2 × Xeon E5-2403 4 1.80 1067 36.2

2 × Xeon E5-2407 4 2.20 1067 42.4

2 × Xeon E5-2420 6 1.90 1333 41.9

2 × Xeon E5-2430L 6 2.00 1333 44.7

2 × Xeon E5-2430 6 2.20 1333 49.1

2 × Xeon E5-2440 6 2.40 1333 52.0

2 × Xeon E5-2450L 8 1.80 1600 45.9

2 × Xeon E5-2450 8 2.10 1600 57.0

2 × Xeon E5-2470 8 2.30 1600 60.5

The results depend primarily on the maximum memory frequency. The smaller differences with processors with the same maximum memory frequency are a result in arithmetic calculation of the different processor frequencies.

The following diagram illustrates the throughput of the PRIMERGY BX920 S3 in comparison to its predecessor, the PRIMERGY BX920 S2, in their most performant configuration.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PRIMERGY BX920 S22 × Xeon X5672

PRIMERGY BX920 S32 × Xeon E5-2470

40.1

60.5

GB/s

STREAM TRIAD: PRIMERGY BX920S3 vs. PRIMERGY BX920S2



LINPACK


LINPACK was developed in the 1970s by Jack Dongarra and some other people to show the performance of supercomputers. The benchmark consists of a collection of library functions for the analysis and solution of linear system of equations. A description can be found in the document http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/hplpaper.pdf.

LINPACK can be used to measure the speed of a computer during the solution of an N–dimensional linear system of equations. The result is specified in GFlops (Giga Floating Point Operations per Second). It is a measure of how many floating-point operations can be carried out per second. The number of floating-point operations required for the solution is determined by the formula

2/3 × N

3 + 2 × N

2.

For the calculation LINPACK requires a matrix of size N × N in the main memory with the value N standing for the number of equations to be solved. Maximum performance is achieved if the available main memory can be fully used as a result of choosing this value. However, the determination of this limit is very time-consuming and the expected increase in the result is only minor. The memory bandwidth of the system also has hardly any impact on the result, because floating-point calculations are chiefly carried out during the run and data exchange only seldom takes place between the parallel processes. Thus the benchmark result is determined for a value of N that is somewhat below the maximum value.

LINPACK is classed as one of the leading benchmarks in the field of high performance computing (HPC). LINPACK is one of the seven benchmarks currently included in the HPC Challenge benchmark suite, which takes other performance aspects in the HPC environment into account.

Intel offers a LINPACK version that has been highly optimized for individual systems with Intel processors. The optimal parameter values are autonomously determined by the software on the basis of the current processor architecture. Another version provided by Intel is based on hpl (High-Performance Linpack) for use on distributed systems, with the intercommunication of the servers taking place via Message Passing Interface (MPI). In the case of this version the parameter values are set via a configuration file. Both versions can be downloaded from http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-library-linpack-download/.

It is possible to publish LINPACK results at http://www.top500.org/. Prerequisite for this is the use of an MPI-based (Message Passing Interface) version. (See: http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/hpl)

The maximum theoretical performance of a processor core follows from the number of floating-point operations that are performed within a clock cycle. Thus e.g. a single processor core with a clock frequency of 2.4 GHz and 4 floating-point operations per cycle would achieve a maximum performance of 9.6 GFlops. The ratio of the measured result to the maximum value shows the efficiency of the system for floating-point calculations. The fewer memory accesses required during the calculation, the better the ratio.

Manufacturer-specific LINPACK versions are also used when graphics cards are used for general purpose computation on a graphics processing unit (GPGPU). They are based on hpl and contain extensions which are needed for communication with the graphics cards. During runtime the compute load is distributed over the system processors and the processors of the graphics cards according to a ratio specified by the user. The LINPACK result accordingly consists of the total performance of the system processors and graphics cards, with the system processors not achieving the result that would be possible without a graphics card on account of the data transfer between main memory and graphics card.

http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/hplpaper.pdf

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-library-linpack-download/

http://www.top500.org/

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/hpl





Hardware



Processor 2 processors of Xeon E5-2400 processor series


Software

BIOS settings Hyper-Threading = Disabled


Benchmark Intel linpack 10.3.11


Benchmark results

The available main memory of 96 GB permits a dimension of N = 100000.

Processor Cores Processor frequency

[Ghz]

Maximum turbo frequency at full load

[Ghz]

Theoretical maximum [GFlops]

LINPACK

[GFlops]

Efficiency

[%]

2 × Xeon E5-2403 4 1.80 n/a 115 105 91

2 × Xeon E5-2407 4 2.20 n/a 141 127 90

2 × Xeon E5-2420 6 1.90 2.20 211 192 91

2 × Xeon E5-2430L 6 2.00 2.30 221 185 84

2 × Xeon E5-2430 6 2.20 2.50 240 218 91

2 × Xeon E5-2440 6 2.40 2.70 259 235 91

2 × Xeon E5-2450L 8 1.80 2.00 256 232 91

2 × Xeon E5-2450 8 2.10 2.60 333 287 86

2 × Xeon E5-2470 8 2.30 2.80 358

A theoretical maximum value can be calculated for processors without Turbo mode with the formula

GFlopsmax = Number of floating-point operations per clock cycle × Number of processor cores × Processor frequency[GHz]

Processors that have Turbo mode are not limited by the nominal processor frequency and therefore do not provide a constant processor frequency. In this case, the actual processor frequency lies between the nominal processor frequency and the maximum turbo frequency at full load. To calculate the theoretical maximum the following formula is used for these processors:

GFlopsmax = Number of floating-point operations per clock cycle × Number of processor cores × Maximum turbo frequency at full load[GHz]

SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY TX200 S6 vs. predecessor



Literature

PRIMERGY Systems

http://primergy.com/

PRIMERGY BX400 S1

Data sheet http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=fab1fbb5-5d63-4b2d-816d-3def6c7cb6da

Performance Report http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=8816cb7a-14d3-4448-b96f-9f443273d128

PRIMERGY BX900 S1

Data sheet http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0a5dcae5-f5a2-42dc-9039-7f887182bc5e

Performance Report http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=04568070-5767-4e66-9549-67008849b53c

PRIMERGY BX900 S2

Data sheet http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=00cf7757-850f-4d5d-99b8-d70bcc253db1

Performance Report http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=17493966-c74e-4392-a108-8109e1c7e5b2

PRIMERGY BX920 S3

Data sheet http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=33efe617-f9a6-44cf-ac8a-ab5eadfe03f0

Memory performance of Xeon E5-2400 (Sandy Bridge-EN)-based systems http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=4bf85b37-fd9c-44a2-8593-3a913e007bd5

PRIMERGY Performance

http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/products/computing/servers/primergy/benchmarks/

Disk I/O

Basics of Disk I/O Performance http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=65781a00-556f-4a98-90a7-7022feacc602

Single Disk Performance http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0e30cb69-44db-4cd5-92a7-d38bacec6a99

RAID Controller Performance http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e2489893-cab7-44f6-bff2-7aeea97c5aef

Information about Iometer http://www.iometer.org

LINPACK

http://www.netlib.org/linpack/

OLTP-2

Benchmark Overview OLTP-2 http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e6f7a4c9-aff6-4598-b199-836053214d3f

SPECcpu2006

http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2006

Benchmark overview SPECcpu2006 http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=1a427c16-12bf-41b0-9ca3-4cc360ef14ce

http://primergy.com/

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=fab1fbb5-5d63-4b2d-816d-3def6c7cb6da

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=8816cb7a-14d3-4448-b96f-9f443273d128

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0a5dcae5-f5a2-42dc-9039-7f887182bc5e

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=04568070-5767-4e66-9549-67008849b53c

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=00cf7757-850f-4d5d-99b8-d70bcc253db1

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=17493966-c74e-4392-a108-8109e1c7e5b2

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=33efe617-f9a6-44cf-ac8a-ab5eadfe03f0


http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/products/computing/servers/primergy/benchmarks/

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=65781a00-556f-4a98-90a7-7022feacc602



http://www.iometer.org/

http://www.netlib.org/linpack/

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e6f7a4c9-aff6-4598-b199-836053214d3f

http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2006

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=1a427c16-12bf-41b0-9ca3-4cc360ef14ce



SPECjbb2005

http://www.spec.org/jbb2005

Benchmark overview SPECjbb2005 http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=5411e8f9-8c56-4ee9-9b3b-98981ab3e820

SPECpower_ssj2008

http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008

Benchmark Overview SPECpower_ssj2008 http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=166f8497-4bf0-4190-91a1-884b90850ee0

STREAM

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/

VMmark V2

Benchmark Overview VMmark V2 http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=2b61a08f-52f4-4067-bbbf-dc0b58bee1bd

VMmark V2 http://www.vmmark.com

VMmark V2 Results http://www.vmware.com/a/vmmark/

vServCon

Benchmark Overview vServCon http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=b953d1f3-6f98-4b93-95f5-8c8ba3db4e59

Contact

FUJITSU

Website: http://www.fujitsu.com/

PRIMERGY Product Marketing

mailto:[email protected]

PRIMERGY Performance and Benchmarks


All rights reserved, including intellectual property rights. Technical data subject to modifications and delivery subject to availability. Any liability that the data and illustrations are complete, actual or correct is excluded. Designations may be trademarks and/or copyrights of the respective manufacturer, the use of which by third parties for their own purposes may infringe the rights of such owner. For further information see http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/resources/navigation/terms-of-use.html

2012-11-30 WW EN Copyright © Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012

http://www.spec.org/jbb2005

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=5411e8f9-8c56-4ee9-9b3b-98981ab3e820

http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=166f8497-4bf0-4190-91a1-884b90850ee0

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=2b61a08f-52f4-4067-bbbf-dc0b58bee1bd

http://www.vmmark.com/

http://www.vmware.com/a/vmmark/

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=b953d1f3-6f98-4b93-95f5-8c8ba3db4e59

http://www.fujitsu.com/



http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/resources/navigation/terms-of-use.html

Documents

Performance Report PRIMERGY BX920 S3 - Fujitsu · fp 6 SPEC fp 2006 ors 6 SPEC fp SPEC fp 6 ors SPEC fp SPEC fp 6 Xeon E5-2403 2 43.2 44.8 1 87.3 89.8 2 170 175 Xeon E5-2407 2 49.4