|
|
2#
楼主 |
发表于 2010-11-29 14:44
|
只看该作者
跑带宽这类HPC应用，Opteron应该没什么问题
![]()
SAP S&D
![]()
8核16线优势明显啊，20%的性能优势
一旦变成6核12线 2G的E7540立马就萎靡了....
VMMARK
![]()
25%的性能优势
The score of 75.34 is achieved with 300 VMs (50 tiles) and 512GB of RAM. That means that each physical Xeon 7500 core is shared by 9.4 VMs !
Let us make this clearer. If you look at the first pages of the VMmark result disclosure of the Dell R815 or Dell R910, you’ll see that the geometric mean score of one tile is around 1.5 (look at the number at the far right). To refresh your memory, a tile consist of 5 active and one idle workload: - MS Exchange (2 CPUs)
- SpecJBB (Java Server, 2 CPUs)
- Apache web server VM (2 CPUs)
- MySQL database VM (2 CPUs)
- SAMBA file server VM (1 CPU)
- Idle VM
If one tile gets a score of 1.5, it means that it is 50% faster than the reference system which ran only one tile. However, the reference system was an old HP Proliant DL580 G2. This system contained two 2.2GHz single-core Intel Xeon CPUs with Hyper-Threading support, and had 16GB of memory. That is a 130nm Xeon “Galatin”, a CPU very similar to the Pentium 4 “Northwood” Desktop CPU. This is a pretty old Xeon: it was introduced in March 2004. Galatin had a 512KB L2 cache like “Northwood”, but a 2MB L3 cache was added to improve scalability, as this was a Xeon MP processor made for quad socket configurations.
这个测试的基准比较老了，2.2G的2way Galatin，nehalem-ex 2.26G一个核心的能力就达到了这个系统的9.4倍
现在推荐使用vApus Mark II ，重载要求更高
vApus Mark II
![]()
![]()
这个测试的基准是 Xeon 5570 2.93代表100%
也就是说，跑4个tiles的时候，2S X5670的OLTP性能只有基准的11%，2S的6174只有13%
The four tiles benchmark achieves higher throughput, but the individual tiles perform very badly. If you remember, our reference scores (100%) are based on the quad-core Xeon 5570 2.93. You can see that the 4-tile benchmark runs achieve only 13% (Opteron) or 11% (Xeon) of a quad Xeon 5500 on the Oracle OLTP test. That means the OLTP VM gets less than a 1.5GHz Xeon 5570 (half a Xeon 5570). In the 2-tile test, the OLTP VM gets the performance of a full Xeon 5570 core (in the case of AMD, probably 1.5 Opteron “Istanbul” cores).
这个测试中，nehalem-ex的性能优势是15%
不过看起来，4s opteron和2s x5670都很有竞争力
最后，功耗测试，大家都上4路SSD，64G内存.....
![]()
FBD2风采依旧，这还是64G哦.....
当然，电源更多确实降低了效率，实际差距会比这个小一些（X7560是4个850W，6174是2个1100W）
![]()
FBD2的怨念啊
模拟真实环境下的功耗测试：
系统的占用是这样的：
![]()
![]()
响应时间
![]()
这个测试对X5670是最舒服的，因为只跑30个virtual CPU，X5670是24个HEC，6174有48个，但是浪费了大把，因为最多也就用上30个...加上单核性能确实比不上么，同样的问题也发生在X7560上，不过差距小不少
We are working on about 30 virtual CPUs, or “worlds” in the eye of the ESX scheduler. The dual Xeon X5670 can offer 24 Hardware Execution Contexts (HECs), the quad Opteron 6174 can offer 48. However, the Opteron cannot leverage the HEC advantage enough in this scenario. The Xeon X7560 has more or less the same core, but a lower clock but it does not suffer from the small scheduling overhead that the Xeon 5670 suffers having less HECs than VMs running. So that is why the 2.26 Xeon 7560 offers only 10-15% higher response times.
So how important is this? Is the Xeon twice as fast as the Opteron? Not really. Remember that we measured this over low latency LAN. A typical web request send from Europe to the AnandTech server in North Carolina will take up to 400 ms. In that scenario the extra 100 ms difference between the Xeon and Opteron will start to fade.
The higher the load, the more the Opteron will narrow the gap as it starts to leverage the higher throughput.
![]()
3tile 44 vcpu以后，6174就赶了上来，当然web差距还是挺大的
继续把负荷加大
![]()
X5670在大负荷下显然已经不行了
AMD系统OLAP的响应更快，但是WEB响应 x7560优势明显
olap是带宽敏感的测试，AMD系统更占优势是肯定的
|
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-11-29 14:42
QQ好友和群
收藏
分享
好贴
烂贴
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡