Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:41:35 02/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2003 at 18:53:37, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 24, 2003 at 18:06:14, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>I will respond to the stuff below, but the discussion is starting to get off >>course. My assertion was that if Xeons suddenly added 50% to their clockrate >>overnight that they would begin to eat into the 'server' markets. There are >>plenty of applications in that space that are CPU bound, where that super fast >>Xeon would fit nicely. Of course it would not take the entire market, or even >>50% of the market. I never said it would. But I'd be willing to bet anything >>that it would take _some_ of that market (5%, 10%, who knows?). That's all I >>ever tried to claim in this particular thread. >> >> >>On February 24, 2003 at 00:03:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 23, 2003 at 22:48:35, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>>You seem to be ignoring that TPC-W has non-clustered x86 machines in the lead. >>> >>> >>>Where? >>> >>>Didn't see a one that wasn't a NUMA-type box with each machine having its >>>own I/O.... >>> >>>I may have overlooked something of course. >> >>I posted it a few messages up in this thread. But I overlooked something also, >>in that every submitted result for TPC-W is an x86 machine. They're all listed >>as non-cluster machines, up to 16 CPUs, but I don't know what their definition >>of 'cluster' is. >> >> >>I see something else interesting though. Top 10 TPC-C results for >>non-clustered(*) machines look like this: >> >>1) 128 CPU Fujitsu SPARC64 GP 563MHz >>2) 32 CPU Itanium2 1GHz >>3) 32 CPU POWER4 1.3GHz >>4) 64 CPU PA-RISC 8700 875MHz >>5) <same as 3> >>6) <same as 4> >>7) <same as 2> >>8) 32 CPU XeonMP 2GHz >>9) 32 CPU Alpha 21264A 1001MHz >>10) 48 CPU Sun SPARC64 GP 563MHz >> >>I'll isolate #s 8 and 9 here: >> >>8) >>Total System Cost - 2,715,310 US $ >>TPC-C Throughput - 234,325 >>Price/Performance - 11.59 US $ >>Availability Date - 03/31/03 >>Database Manager - Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition >>Operating System - Microsoft Windows .NET Server 2003 Datacenter Edt. >>Transaction Monitor - Microsoft COM+ >> >>9) >>Total System Cost - 10,286,029 US $ >>TPC-C Throughput - 230,533 >>Price/Performance - 44.62 US $ >>Availability Date - 07/30/01 >>Database Manager - Oracle 9i Database Enterprise Edition >>Operating System - Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1 >>Transaction Monitor - Compaq DB Web Connector V1.1 >> >>How can such a number be explained? I would expect the Alpha machine to win by >>a large margin, but it actually loses. >> >>(*) Again, I don't know how they define cluster. I am not aware of a Windows >>version that has any kind of NUMA optimizations, however, which I think would be >>necessary to get a very good score on this type of benchmark, if indeed the >>machines are NUMA ones. > >"Operating System - Microsoft Windows .NET Server 2003 Datacenter Edt." > >Hello NUMA optimizations. > >I, too, am not sure why the Alpha is beaten by the 2 GHz XeonMP (though only by >a narrow margin, <2%). I would say that comparing different databases is asking >for trouble, but I have heard that Oracle is the fastest database software >available. > >I believe all Intel systems with more than 16 CPUs are -definitely- NUMA. >Supposedly they support 16P, but I have never seen one with that many >processors. Most larger systems are built with a NUMA cluster of 4P nodes. > >-Matt there are a couple of companies producing non-NUMA machines. IE Sequent in Portland Oregon once made a 32-way X86 box. Fully shared memory SMP platform... But they are not in the PC price range, starting at 1/2 mil and going up _quickly_ as you add processors.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.