We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280 12
cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.

We are running Oracle 8.1.7.4 (32 bit). We are finding during our
performance and parallel tests that our IBM is 2 times as fast as the v1280.
Our processes are only using 1 CPU.

Management does not want to go to 64 bit so that is not on the agenda.

I have pulled off the spec2000 for the 2 chips and it says the Ultrasparc
III should be faster than the IBM processor but we are not finding that with
our application.

We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says the
IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.

Any comments?

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:37:16 +0000, computer person wrote:

> We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280 12
> cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.
>
> We are running Oracle 8.1.7.4 (32 bit). We are finding during our
> performance and parallel tests that our IBM is 2 times as fast as the v1280.
> Our processes are only using 1 CPU.
>
> Management does not want to go to 64 bit so that is not on the agenda.
>
> I have pulled off the spec2000 for the 2 chips and it says the Ultrasparc
> III should be faster than the IBM processor but we are not finding that with
> our application.
>
> We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says the
> IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.
>
> Any comments?

You are taking a too simplistic approach when trying to verify
expectations from the V1280. Oracle is NOT strictly a "CPU" based
application and is NOT a "simple C program" It is a database
that taxes disk IO, memory and CPU. Did someone just "load up" oracle on
the V1280 just to run some benchmarks or has it properly been setup? I
would guess that "it has something to do with configuration" and not any
particular deficency of the machine

computer person wrote:
> We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280 12
> cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.
>
> We are running Oracle 8.1.7.4 (32 bit). We are finding during our
> performance and parallel tests that our IBM is 2 times as fast as the v1280.
> Our processes are only using 1 CPU.
>
> Management does not want to go to 64 bit so that is not on the agenda.
>
> I have pulled off the spec2000 for the 2 chips and it says the Ultrasparc
> III should be faster than the IBM processor but we are not finding that with
> our application.
>
> We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says the
> IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.
>
> Any comments?
>
>
I'm curious about what version and patch level of Solaris if that is
what you are using, and if not, then what...

Also, what about I/O? How is your storage arranged? Probably significant
given the application is a database.

We are using an elderly E4000 recently upgraded from two 250 MHz CPUs to
eight 400 MHz CPUs, and did not see more than an incremental
improvement. I expected it to improve much more. I do not have detailed
performance info, however, so I am certainly missing the details.
Perhaps in my case we were not loading the system enough to make the
addition of more processors a significant addition, and most of our
improvement is simply because the processors are running at a faster clock.

"Tom Hamilton" <sg7188@snet.net> wrote in message
newsan.2003.12.28.16.00.00.833832@snet.net...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:37:16 +0000, computer person wrote:
>
> > We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280
12
> > cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.
> >
> > We are running Oracle 8.1.7.4 (32 bit). We are finding during our
> > performance and parallel tests that our IBM is 2 times as fast as the
v1280.
> > Our processes are only using 1 CPU.
> >
> > Management does not want to go to 64 bit so that is not on the agenda.
> >
> > I have pulled off the spec2000 for the 2 chips and it says the
Ultrasparc
> > III should be faster than the IBM processor but we are not finding that
with
> > our application.
> >
> > We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says
the
> > IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> You are taking a too simplistic approach when trying to verify
> expectations from the V1280. Oracle is NOT strictly a "CPU" based
> application and is NOT a "simple C program" It is a database
> that taxes disk IO, memory and CPU. Did someone just "load up" oracle on
> the V1280 just to run some benchmarks or has it properly been setup? I
> would guess that "it has something to do with configuration" and not any
> particular deficency of the machine

The queries that run during the parallel test are using sqlplus as the
client. They seem to be very CPU intensize because I do not see any Wait for
IO. The CPU total runs at 8.3 % which is 1 full cpu during the run. We have
12 cpus so 100/12=8.3%.

We are using 3510 storage with an extra jbod. We are using Veritas
vm/filesystem 3.5 and have tuned this as much as we could with no
improvment. It keeps coming back to the CPU speed.

We are using Solaris 8 latest recommended patches. We do not have plans for
Sol9 right now due to too many machines to upgrade.

Hope that answers your questions. By the way, the simple "C" program counts
from 1 to 100 million or something like that and was supplied by Sun
Engineering due to our concern about CPU speed. They have not gotten back to
us since I published the fact that the IBM machine ran it twice as fast with
1 CPU. When I run 8 concurrent the V1280 is faster by a few % and when I run
24 the v1280 is faster by 27% then our 4 cpu ibm box. Thats because there is
12 processors vs 4, I guess. That does not help us becuase our Oracle
queries only use 1 CPU during the query. Sure, we could look at parralel
query using more CPUs but this test is pretty valid if you want to compare
like scenerios. Oracle has been tuned by Oracle professional services and
Sun professional services. Several changes we made which improved a little
bit.

We have done our homework so don't think we simply banged up a machine and
ran stuff

Any other comments why IBM p660 single processor is kicking the ass of a
900Mhz Ultrasparc III on a V1280?

Thanks

At Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:37:16 GMT, "computer person" <fake_address@nothing.com> writes:

At Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:37:16 GMT, "computer person" <fake_address@nothing.com> writes:

> We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280 12
> cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.

> We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says the
> IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.

This is a bit vague. What C program is that, exactly? Can you post
it here? Exactly how did you compile and time it on both hosts?

Also, which processors exactly are in your two servers?

SPEC says the IBM eServer pSeries 660 Model 6H0 (750 MHz) got a
SPECint_base2000 score of 431, whereas the Sun Fire V1280 (900 MHz)
got a 479. That's pretty close. I wouldn't be surprised if the IBM
beat the Sun by a factor of two on some CPU benchmarks, but I would be
a bit surprised if it won that big overall on a broader CPU test.

computer person wrote:

> We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280 12
> cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.
>
> We are running Oracle 8.1.7.4 (32 bit). We are finding during our
> performance and parallel tests that our IBM is 2 times as fast as the v1280.
> Our processes are only using 1 CPU.
>
> Management does not want to go to 64 bit so that is not on the agenda.
>
> I have pulled off the spec2000 for the 2 chips and it says the Ultrasparc
> III should be faster than the IBM processor but we are not finding that with
> our application.
>
> We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says the
> IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.
>
> Any comments?
>
>

I imagine the devil is in the details. You've probably tuned your IBM
installation over the years you've had it. Identify what is limiting
performance on the new machine and tune IT.

BTW, is there any particular reason to just use one processor?


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Tom Hamilton wrote:

> You are taking a too simplistic approach when trying to verify
> expectations from the V1280. Oracle is NOT strictly a "CPU" based
> application and is NOT a "simple C program" It is a database
> that taxes disk IO, memory and CPU. Did someone just "load up" oracle on
> the V1280 just to run some benchmarks or has it properly been setup? I
> would guess that "it has something to do with configuration" and not any
> particular deficency of the machine

Don't forget that IBM CPUs have two cores per processor
(or is the OP's machine too old for this to be a factor?).
That might explain some of the discrepancy.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA . * * . * .* .
. * . .*
President, * . . /\ ( . . *
Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' .
URL: http://www.rite-online.net ******************

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3FEF2A46.7000402@prodigy.net...
> computer person wrote:
>
> > We are currently migrating from IBM RS/6000 p660 4 cpu machine to v1280
12
> > cpu machine due to corporate directive to standardize on Sun.
> >
> > We are running Oracle 8.1.7.4 (32 bit). We are finding during our
> > performance and parallel tests that our IBM is 2 times as fast as the
v1280.
> > Our processes are only using 1 CPU.
> >
> > Management does not want to go to 64 bit so that is not on the agenda.
> >
> > I have pulled off the spec2000 for the 2 chips and it says the
Ultrasparc
> > III should be faster than the IBM processor but we are not finding that
with
> > our application.
> >
> > We ran a simple C program test and did find that just CPU use it says
the
> > IBM is twice the speed for cpu operations.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> >
>
> I imagine the devil is in the details. You've probably tuned your IBM
> installation over the years you've had it. Identify what is limiting
> performance on the new machine and tune IT.
>
> BTW, is there any particular reason to just use one processor?
>
>
> --
> After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
> concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
> mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
> steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Our IBM system is only 1 year old and no tuning has been done what so ever
to the IBM system. kernel parms are all default .

We use 1 processor cuz that is what Oracle uses in the 1 query.

You are right about the spec2000 as I already mentioned above but thanks for
inserting the exact #'s which what it is.

The simple C program is as follows from Sun Egineering:
#define LIMIT (1000000*1000)
main()
{
int cnt = 0;
while (cnt < LIMIT)
cnt++;
printf("final = %d million\n", cnt/1000000);
}

It was compiled with default option on GCC on both IBM and Sun..It counts to
1000 million in 10 seconds on IBM p660 and 20 seconds on v1280.

As far as Oracle tuning goes, as I said in another follow up post before,
Oracle Prof services and Sun prof services were hired to tune the Sun
machine after we noticed the perf issue.

Perhaps thers can compile that C program and run it on their boxes (IBM and
SUN) and post the results just for fun!

"computer person" <fake_address@nothing.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|The simple C program is as follows from Sun Egineering:
|#define LIMIT (1000000*1000)
|main()
|{
| int cnt = 0;
| while (cnt < LIMIT)
| cnt++;
| printf("final = %d million\n", cnt/1000000);
|}
|
|It was compiled with default option on GCC on both IBM and Sun..It counts to
|1000 million in 10 seconds on IBM p660 and 20 seconds on v1280.

I think the lesson I'd learn here is not to use gcc with default
options:

System: Sun E250 with 2x400Mhz UltraSPARC II
Compilers: gcc 2.95, SunOne CC 8.0 (patch 112760-04)

gcc w/no options: 32.72u 0.01s 0:32.73 100.0%
gcc -O2: 5.03u 0.01s 0:05.04 100.0%
cc w/no options: 5.04u 0.00s 0:05.04 100.0%
cc -fast: 0.01u 0.00s 0:00.01 100.0%

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Alan Coopersmith alanc@alum.calberkeley.org
http://www.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Alan Coopersmith <alanc@alum.calberkeley.org> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|"computer person" <fake_address@nothing.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
||The simple C program is as follows from Sun Egineering:
||#define LIMIT (1000000*1000)
||main()
||{
|| int cnt = 0;
|| while (cnt < LIMIT)
|| cnt++;
|| printf("final = %d million\n", cnt/1000000);
||}
||
||It was compiled with default option on GCC on both IBM and Sun..It counts to
||1000 million in 10 seconds on IBM p660 and 20 seconds on v1280.
|
|I think the lesson I'd learn here is not to use gcc with default
|options:
|
|System: Sun E250 with 2x400Mhz UltraSPARC II
|Compilers: gcc 2.95, SunOne CC 8.0 (patch 112760-04)
|
| gcc w/no options: 32.72u 0.01s 0:32.73 100.0%
| gcc -O2: 5.03u 0.01s 0:05.04 100.0%
| cc w/no options: 5.04u 0.00s 0:05.04 100.0%
| cc -fast: 0.01u 0.00s 0:00.01 100.0%

BTW, in fairness, cc -fast seems to figure out how useless the loop is
and optimize it out completely:
! SUBROUTINE main
!
! OFFSET SOURCE LINE LABEL INSTRUCTION

.global main
main:
/* 000000 7 */ sethi
%hi(.L23),%o5
/* 0x0004 */ or %g0,%o7,%g1
/* 0x0008 */ add %o5,%lo(.L23),%o0
/* 0x000c */ or %g0,1000,%o1
/* 0x0010 */ call printf ! params = %o0 %o1 ! Result = ! (tail call)
/* 0x0014 */ or %g0,%g1,%o7
/* 0x0018 0 */ .type main,2
/* 0x0018 0 */ .size main,(.-main)
/* 0x0018 0 */ .global __fsr_init_value
/* 0x0018 */ __fsr_init_value=1

That's the entire program when compiled with -fast.
Without -fast there are actually compare & branch instructions in the
assembler output, so it does run through the loop.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Alan Coopersmith alanc@alum.calberkeley.org
http://www.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.