Dual CPU Database Server Comparison
by Johan De Gelas on December 2, 2004 12:11 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
64 bit Software Experiences...
As we stated above, we didn't use the latest and greatest version of MySQL, but rather, we used the version that came with the SUSE SLES8 to avoid software issues. The wisdom of this decision was quickly illustrated when we tried to install DB2 8.1.2 64 bit on our 64 bit SLES 8.
To make db administration easy, IBM provides a control center, which is a very powerful tool that gives a good overview of all tables and instances. This tool runs on top of Java. We noticed that DB2cc was completely unstable with SUN's java, so we had to un-install it and install IBM's version. This might not been new to many DB2 users out there, but for us, it was a disappointment that there are incompatibilities between different JVM. After all, it was the ease of porting applications that made Java so popular.
And installing IBM java wasn't so easy. But finally after adapting profiles, paths and making several softlinks, we made it work.
The next problem was that Java 64 bit wasn't stable yet, so we had to create a 32 bit instance on top of our 64 bit database. Even then, we received cryptic messages such as "CLI0622E Error accessing JDBC administration service extensions".
At last, we came to conclusion that 64 bit DB2 8.1.2 would never run on our system. Luckily by that time, DB2 8.1.3 was out, which fixed quite a few of the problems mentioned above.
This experience shows that moving to 64 bit software is as easy as many reports might indicate. In fact, 32 bit software on a 64 bit operating system will never be 100% free of incompatibilities. System calls from a 32-bit application always need to be converted to 64-bit calls by a type of emulation layer.
As quoted by Andi Kleen:
"A system call from an 32bit application needs to be converted to 64bit. While this isn't that hard for the Unix/Linux system calls (Unix traditionally has a relatively clean and not too big interface between user and kernel space) there are lots of "backdoors" - ioctls - for various driver specific tasks. For these a 64bit kernel will likely never be 100% compatible because there are thousands of these. Of course the majority of applications don't use obscure driver ioctls, but some still do. So in short you have some risk of incompatibility when running 32bit binaries on 64bit kernels".Don't get us wrong - it is probably 98% or so compatible. But before moving to a fully 64 bit system, you should test your 32 bit applications thoroughly on your favorite 64 bit OS.
On the bright side, we were amazed how easily Yast2 (SUSE install tool) recognized all our hardware on both Xeon and Opteron platforms. Yast2 is simply a wonderful tool that made software and hardware upgrades very easy. I used to have very different experiences with Linux and I remember vividly how I struggled to get some network cards and SCSI cards working.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
About SLES9 and NUMA: NUMA is also supported by Linux kernel 2.4.21 and it boosts performance only a tiny bit. The reason are the very speedy HT links which keep latency at a minimum.It is still possible that kernel 2.6 NUMA support is far better of course, but I doubt it makes a difference for quad or dual systems as there is only hop in quad systems. With two hops (8 CPUs) from CPU 1 to 8 for example, this will become important.
AtaStrumf - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
A TYPO:So for now, the Opteron has an advantage still, but it ***can*** /can't/ knock out the Xeon, as it could have a few months ago, before the Xeon Nocona arrived.
HardwareD00d - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
There have been enough benchmarks on the web for a long time which show that Opteron generally wipes Xeon's a$$ hands down, and scales far better in multi processor configurations. The latest Xeon is nothing special compared to prior versions and will no doubt preform better mostly due to its increased clock speed. Xeon will never be better than Opteron no matter how much cache and tweaks Intel adds.Maybe Intel's next server architecture will be something to woo, but that's a ways off.
jshaped - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
as a long-time reader of aceshardware, i'll be the first to welcome Johan here, great first article. keep them coming!!!!HardwareD00d - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
I don't think there are enough variations of the way requests are handled to make a realistic conclusion for either chip. I'm sure you could create a situation where Intel bests AMD in My Sql, and vice versa. This article really needs more benchmarks and more in-depth analysis. Still, it provides enough information to conclude that both Xeon and Opteron have their strengths and weaknesses.mczak - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Nice read. I really think though you should have used SLES 9. Not only does it use kernel 2.6, but it's also NUMA-aware (and DB2 should specifically support it, though it might not have been released yet). SLES 9 also ought to be faster especially on x86_64 due to newer compiler (not that it would matter much with precompiled databases, but every bit counts...). Though for 2-cpu boxes, NUMA might not be that important - but it's safe to predict a landslide victory for a 4-cpu opteron with NUMA support vs. a 4-cpu xeon box. Xeons simply don't scale to 4 cpus, intel might sell them but they are useless (especially since the Xeon MPs are still limited to 400 (or was that 533?) Mhz FSB.A pity though the quad opterons don't support ddr-400. I guess manufacturers decided it's more important to have a boatload of ram slots than fewer slots (with shorter traces) with higher speeds...
And btw, where are the 90nm Opterons? AMD's latest roadmap shows them as available in 2004, which doesn't leave too much time...
bthomas - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Bogus conclusions about IBM tests IMO. From the
article:
> If we had published a similar report back in
> August, the Opteron would enjoyed a landslide
> victory. Luckily for Intel, Nocona is very
> competitive and is about 5% faster than the Opteron 250.
and later in the "conclusion":
> Nevertheless, AMD cannot sit on its laurels.
> Intel made a very good comeback with Nocona, as > this 3.6 GHz CPU is just a tiny bit faster in >
DB2.
It has not.
You fail to specify that this is comparing the _32 bit_ mode for the Opteron. IF you compare the Nocoma performance to the Opteron 64 bit capability...it sweeps the the Nocona in all tests.
The true conclusion is that based on the results in the article, for neither of the databases tested do *any* of the Intel processors compete with the Opteron.
fitten - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Randomized benchmarks are hard to verify as well. You could get a "good" distribution that really takes advantage of cache locality while another randomization may be very cache unfriendly. I agree with #5 to a degree. A database that fits entirely inside of RAM isn't very interesting, ultimately.Still, I am happy that AnandTech is going down these paths of benchmarking instead of just being about Doom3, HL2, and FarCry like most other sites. I eagerly await further database benchmark articles.
PrinceXizor - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
#5 - Since when do top tier e-commerce cites compare to mid-level company database users as the beginning of the article mentioned?My company is an engineering firm that does custom electronics. Our database server handles all the transactions for our Inventory/MRP system which is mostly reads. These benchmarks are very appropriate. I wish I could have convinced my boss to go Opteron. Its funny, they had Athlon MP's before and then switched to Xeons when Opteron was out. Go figure.
Anyway, great article. I'm not IT guy by any stretch, but I enjoyed the article.
P-X
Jason Clark - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
#6, done ages ago..http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2205
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982