* Posts by PowerMan4Evr

16 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jan 2016

InfiniBand-on-die MIA in Oracle's new 'Sonoma' Sparc S7 processor

PowerMan4Evr

Really, nobody was ever fired for buying Intel?

Taking some liberty with that phrase I think as I know many people who were fired for buying Intel solutions to replace their enterprise solutions from HP, IBM and Oracle (SPARC).

Also, Oracle talks out of both sides of their mouth. For years they have touted performance based on the total sum of all cores in a socket as they always had weak cores but alot of them. Now they cut a S7 by 75% improving thermal dynamics and less plumbing contention that the 32c chip has and now its all about core strength. Interesting given that Intel is now delivering 22 cores (EP) & 24 cores (EX) respectively so having a 8 core chip seems perplexing if they are competing against them.

Intel's Broadwell Xeon E5-2600 v4 chips: So what's in it for you, smartie-pants coders

PowerMan4Evr

Re: 3.5

There is Oracle marketing spewing their lies. SPARC M7 goes around claiming performance superiority on a per socket level....They will compare their socket to an Intel or POWER. They won't mention the SPARC M7 socket consists of 32 cores while they will compare it to an Intel server with 10 cores or a POWER8 server with 6 cores. Oracle marketing continuing to purposely misstate the facts.

PowerMan4Evr

Re: 3.5

I wrote a blog http://wp.me/p4PWml-1h on this great Intel charade. Performance per core is flat with Haswell & Broadwell EP to the original Nehalem Gainestown. For workloads priced by the core, especially Oracle, all this means is you pay more per socket for flat performance.

Power9: Google gives Intel a chip-flip migraine, IBM tries to lures big biz

PowerMan4Evr

Re: Power8 is a PowerHOG

Yawn! After Oracle accepts my Power challenge to run them head to head using a real customer workload I'll happily show you the HW List Price / Performance & Performance / Watt. Nothing says believable like a real world workload.

We can also meet at any major US airport hotel for a platform / technology debate.l El Reg has stated they would happily moderate when I first offered this to Oracle over a year ago. Bring your best 2 speakers and I'll bring my wing-man. You'll get a projector and a whiteboard. We will record and publish unedited to YouTube.

Phone lines are open ..... don't call collect, Larry can afford the dime.

PowerMan4Evr

Re: Power8 is a PowerHOG

What's awesome about your half-ass attempts to portray SPARC as anything other than lipstick on a pig while putting down all competitors especially IBM POWER which you seem to have a sick obsession with, is that end up showing how poorly SPARC performs.

You tried to call out the S812LC as requiring 3500 Watts because that is what the IBM Redbook says. I called you out and you admitted you were wrong. As an Oracle troll, you continue to state the POWER8 S824 is a 4 chip system when that IS NOT how IBM classifies it but instead it is a 2 socket server. This isn't unusual for a company such as you work for who is known to purposely misstate a competitors features. It is inconvenient since you want to marginalize IBM POWER as much as possible to highlight your inferior SPARC servers. This goes way back to even when it was Sun (sad to say). One example that comes to mind is with the IBM POWER6 570 server. IBM would refer to it as a 8 processor server which in fact was IBM say 8 cores or 4 x Dual Chip Modules. Sun would then use the fact IBM said "8 processor" even though it was clear it was 8 cores and compare it to a T-series server with 8 processors. In this case, the 8 processor might have 8 or 16 cores because Sun called a socket or chip a processor. Sun would then try to say their T-series was 4 times better performing with their 8 processor vs IBM POWER even though the T-series had anywhere from 8 - 16 times more cores. As I state in my recent blog https://powertheenterprise.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/oracles-at-it-again-stuffing-a-card-up-their-sleeve/, Oracle has ZERO credibility. The only reason I respond to a troll is to not let your lies go unanswered.

You are now searching through IBM docs looking for anything you can criticize. If you knew half as much as you thought you would be dangerous. Right now you are just ignorant. IBM has a public tool which shows real world energy consumption based on how the server is built. As such, a heavily configured 24 core S824 like I regularly sell to customers to replace aging legacy SPARC crap it shows the server would consume 980 Watts at 50% utilization. So, your 8 chipset T7-1 by your own admission uses roughly 1750 Watts. That puts IBM POWER8 at 490 Watts per socket compared to 1750 Watts for Oracles 1 socket server. Break it down by core and POWER8 is 40 Watts per core vs 55 Watts per core for the SPARC T7-1.

Go back to your Mama's basement troll.

PowerMan4Evr

Re: Powerboy comments on SPARC M7

"Can you explain how Oracle misconfigured the system to get better results than what IBM shows"

No! I wouldn't help you improve your garbage benchmark even 1% just so you could half-ass it further only to attempt to exploit some other failure made by Oracle. Thank you for purchasing a POWER8 server.

PowerMan4Evr

Re: POWER9 performance?

Let's see if I have this right....IBM is bad and Oracle is better....oh wait - now that you have facts IBM isn't so bad, actually better than Oracle but IBM still sucks because they aren't as good as Intel. <Bell rings> Hey, is that your 3rd grade bell ringing?........#NoCredibility

PowerMan4Evr

Re: Powerboy comments on SPARC M7

Let's start here. Oracle has 0 (i.e. ZERO) credibility. It isn't just the FUD and benchmark exaggerations but how many times have they been called out for publishing & stating things about their own systems and competitors that were purposefully wrong. So, you can say what you want, write what you want but the fact you work for Oracle, writing at an Oracle blog and even have Oracle testing an IBM POWER8 server is all reason to not believe a damn word you say.

It's laughable for you to say that IBM has something to hide...Right, why are there NO IBM POWER benchmarks running Oracle except for Oracle workloads like EBS? Because Oracle won't allow IBM to. Oracle's end user license agreement gives Oracle the right to approve this and they don't. Please keep your faux outrage as it rings hollow as everything else that you say.

You write in your blog "On a per chip basis, the SPARC T7-1 server demonstrated nearly 5.5 times better performance compared to an IBM Power System S824 server". Ok, let's break it down using "your vernacular". A T7-1, although it is actually 8 x quad core chiplets, you call it a single chip consisting of 32 cores while calling the 2 socket S824 a 4 chip system which IBM, the vendor of the server does not. That said, your 32 core chip, by YOUR words is 5.5X better performance. Thus, 6 cores vs 32 cores or 5.33X.

Next, you chose the 24 core S824 which is fine but it also runs at 3.52 GHz vs the 4.13 GHz T7. Why didn't you pick the 16 core S824 running at 4.15 GHz? That way you could call it a 4 chip, 2 socket with 4 cores per chip system and your 32 core, single socket, single chip (that is really 8 x quad chiplets) system is 2X the cores allowing for better and equal extrapolation? Even setting the ASMI mode to favor performance is the 2nd best option. There is a better option but since you don't know the platform you either chose not to or didn't know what to select.

Then, you say "On a per core basis the SPARC T7-1 server demonstrated nearly 3% better performance per core compared to an IBM Power System S824 server.". I'll just refer to the above paragraph where the T7 clock frequency was running 17% higher.

Then you say "At the system level, the SPARC T7-1 server demonstrated nearly 1.4 times better performance compared to the IBM Power System S824 server.". 24 cores times 1.4 = 33.6......hmmm. You tested a 1 socket vs a 2 socket server running 17% higher clock.

As stated at by your many, MANY distractors at http://www.anandtech.com/show/10230/ibm-nvidia-and-wistron-develop-new-openpower-hpc-server-with-power8-cpus-nvlink they rightly point out that Oracle ran the Oracle benchmark on the POWER8 server. There is no disclosure on how the server was configured; How many DIMMs were used? Filling all 16 DIMM slots will make a difference than just 8 or 4 since all 3 configuration options can achieve 512 GB Ram. Although a few tunable were disclosed as if to demonstrate that an effort was made, I question the ones used. I won't disclose what I would have done differently as I like that Oracle looks like petty in their effort to show Oracle on POWER8 performance. If they were interested they would authorize IBM to run their own.

Even though you won't go away, won't you just go away?!

PowerMan4Evr

Re: POWER9 performance?

Yes, this is definitely Oracle marketing. You need to update your marketing FUD Oracle as the S812LC redpaper no longer has uses the 3500 Watt reference. It was no where close...it is 3 digits and less than your T7-1.

Oracle, just accept my "POWER Challenge".

Oracle is predictable and boring. If they would just shut up and put up we could let the world draw their own conclusions.

PowerMan4Evr

Re: POWER9 performance?

This smells like Oracle marketing, if not Phil Dunn. There is ZERO need to respond to @PlinkerTind's bloviating as they are just trying to be provocative while spreading FUD. I have an outstanding offer to Oracle to accept my "POWER Challenge". You bring your biggest & baddest SPARC server and I'll bring mine. I have a customer who runs Oracle on POWER. This customer will load their data onto both servers. Oracle can tune their OS/virtualization but can't touch the data. I'll tune my OS/virtualization and we will see which server runs the fastest with the fewest # of cores. We will then do a TCA & TCO analysis posting it all online. I will run an additional test which is to import the data into DB2 and run it on POWER. Oracle is welcome to run it if they like...I'll provide the TCA / TCO for this extra credit portion.

By the way, SPARC T7 processor consist of 8 x quad core chiplets that with small L1, L2 & L3 caches with the L1 being the only one dedicated to a core - the others are shared to a 4 core chiplet. 4 Memory Controllers feed the 8 chiplets that Oracle claims only delivers up to 160 GB/s which is 20 GB/s to each chiplet. Compared to the POWER8 SCM which has dual memory controllers delivering up to 230 GB/s to the entire processor/socket. Because they have so far been unable to build strong cores, they resort to building servers with the most cores. With the list price of Oracle Database Enterprise Edition at $47,500 + 22% annual maintenance, the per core performance is VERY important. Oracle's business is to sell software licenses. Instead of Oracle building SPARC 7 to have the same or fewer cores that are stronger so the aggregate performance is more than T5/M5/M6 they instead double the cores & claim 1.9X performance. This is why they have ExaData with so many Intel cores loaded with Oracle software licensed traditional and non-traditionally (storage server licenses hide some of the DB processing shifting some of the TCA/TCO to them making it look better when compared to competitors).

Yes, Oracle is predictable and boring. If they would just shut up and put up we could let the world draw their own conclusions.

Google, Rackspace to together unfurl DIY Power9 server designs

PowerMan4Evr

Re: One to watch with interest

Oracle marketing troll alert with @PlinkerTind. Why doesn't he/she identify themself? Spews the same nonsense on every post.

I am a multi-vendor BP. It's my job to assess a customers environment, listen to their needs and make recommendations. POWER8 is the answer for database workloads - commercial like Oracle & DB2 or open source like EnterpriseDB, MongoDB, Redis Labs, MariaDB, MySQL, CassandraDB and many more. High I/O workloads like Big Data / Hadoop / Spark and significant data analysis required from Analytics - Cognos is ok, Watson is really cool but not for everyone and I'm a big fan of Information Builders "Business User Edition". In the past we always recommended AIX or even IBM i that required the benefits of POWER but now with what IBM is doing with Linux we are recommending those solutions for workloads that would previously go onto Intel.

We definitely recommend Intel solutions where customers have scale-out workloads, particularly suitable with VMware. App servers, Infrastructure services like file & print, domain controllers and for our IBM i customers they often are paired with MSFT Windows servers.

We never, let me say NEVER have a customer ask for Solaris & SPARC or HP-UX & Itanium for that matter. We do occassionally see Oracle Exadata in our Oracle shops - usually by the DBA's who went to a Oracle conference coming back full of kool-aid. Otherwise, we see it when Oracle threatens licensing audits. By far, the most popular Intel solutions are Cisco, Dell and HPE (in that order with my customers).

Some are asking for HCIA but mostly dabbling with it (they are intrigued) but often when they test their enterprise workloads they find they are underpowered compared to traditional Intel servers.

Back to the Oracle troll. He says "blah blah blah" and since it is his job to troll competitive articles. He likes to follow-up getting into a circular argument saying the same things over and over and over.

I've offered Oracle to test their T7-1 or T7-2 against my 24 core S824 but they never accept. They have instead bought their own server, configured it then ran their own benchmarks. Wow, you can trust those results #NOT! Read this other El Reg article where this same troll had to admit he made several mistakes plus myself & others pointed out several errors with their test configuration. http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2016/04/07/open_power_summit_power9/?post_received=2834982#c_2834982

Another article at Anandtech discussing POWER9 has @Brutalizer (ie Oracle marketing troll) arguing the same circular BS http://www.anandtech.com/show/10230/ibm-nvidia-and-wistron-develop-new-openpower-hpc-server-with-power8-cpus-nvlink.

Quick as a flash: A quick look at IBM FlashSystem

PowerMan4Evr

Re: I think I know the answer

I've worked with SVC in multi-platform shops for years. I recommend it to customers regardless who their primary SAN storage vendor is. SVC gives every shop freedom & flexibility because the SVC is storage agnostic - it doesn't care if it is managing EMC, IBM, HDS, NetApp, Compellent, HDS, Pure, etc, etc. Now, your FC relationship to servers, hosts & VM's can remain static allowing you the freedom to perform maintenance, migrate out/in or upgrade storage without disruption. Yes, it implies you have more than 1 storage subsystem to get all of the bells & whistles but for uptime, flexibility while maintaining performance levels you can't beat an SVC.

Hyper-converged prospects? Thanks to firm-gobbling habit and OEM deal, Dell has 3

PowerMan4Evr

Product overload

Atkinson says Dell is conservative about who it will partner with while a couple of para above they list out 5 different HCIA products. There is so much redundancy across the Dell - EMC acquisition that after all the redundancies (including employee's) are eliminated so will shareholder value.

PowerMan4Evr

@mattcang must work for Dell, EMC, VMware, VCE or Nutanix. So it begins ....

PowerMan4Evr

Re: Am I the only one

They use low performing processors and will tell you (at least privately) to be careful what workloads to run on them. Hmm, why bother?

This EMC is bereft of expansion, it is formerly increasing ... it is ex-growth

PowerMan4Evr

Example of product shift & giving footprint away

The decline in VMAX & VNX has as much to do with EMC's focus on pushing XtremIO at any cost to gain AFA marketshare, even to give it away to beat the competition, especially Pure. Rob Peter to pay Paul.