Reading Data Sheets
If you are in a position of influence affecting technology adoption in your enterprise you likely spend a lot of time reading data sheets from vendors. This is just a quick blog entry about something I simply haven’t taken the time to cover even though the topic at hand has always be a “problem.” Well, at least since the release of the Oracle Exadata Database Machine X2-8.
In the following references and screenshots you’ll see that Oracle cites 1.5 million flash read IOPS as an expected limit for both the full-rack Oracle Exadata Database Machine X3-2 and the Oracle Exadata Database Machine X3-8. All machines have limits and Exadata is no exception. Notice how I draw attention to the footnote that accompanies the flash read IOPS claim. Footnote number 3 says that both of these Exadata models are limited in flash read IOPS by the database host CPU. Let me repeat that last bit for anyone scrutinizing my words for reasons other than education: The Oracle Exadata Database Machine data sheets explicitly state flash read IOPS are limited by host CPU.
Oracle’s numbers in this case are SQL-driven from Oracle instances. I have no doubt these systems are both capable of achieving 1.5 million read IOPS from flash because, truth be told, that isn’t really all that many IOPS–especially when the IOPS throughput numbers are not accompanied by service times. In the 1990s it was all about “how much” but in modern times it’s about “how fast.” Bandwidth is an old, tired topic. Modern platforms are all about latency. Intel QPI put the problem of bandwidth to rest.
So, again, I don’t doubt the 1.5 million flash read IOPS citation. Exadata has a lot of flash cards and a lot of host processors to drive concurrent I/O. Indeed, with the concurrent processing capabilities of both of these Exadata models, Oracle would be able to achieve 1.5 million IOPS even if the service times were more in line with what one would expect with mechanical storage. Again, we never see service time citations so in actuality the 1.5 million number is just a representation of how much in-flight I/O the platform can handle.
Here is the new truth: IOPS is a storage bandwidth metric.
Host CPU Limited! How Many CPUs?
Here’s the stinger: Oracle blames host CPU for the 1.5 million flash read IOPS number. The problem with that is the X3-2 has 128 Xeon E5-2690 processor cores and the X3-8 has 160 Xeon E7-8870 processor cores. So what is Oracle’s real message here? Is it that the cores in the X3-8 are 20% slower than those in the X3-2 model? I don’t know. I can’t put words in Oracle’s mouth. However, if the data sheet is telling the truth then one of two things is true, either a) the E5-2690 processors are indeed 20% faster on a per-core basis than the E7-8870 or b) there is a processing asymmetry problem.
Not All CPU Bottlenecks Are Created Equal
Oracle would likely not be willing to dive into technical detail to the same level I do. Life is a series of choices–including who you chose to buy storage and platforms from. However, Oracle’s literature is clear about the number of active 40Gb QDR Infiniband ports there are in each configuration and this is where the asymmetry comes in. There are 8 active ports in both of these models. That means there are 8 streams of interrupt handling in both cases–regardless of how many cores there are in total.
As is the case with any networked storage, I recommend you monitor mpstat -P ALL output on database hosts to see whether there are cores nailed to the wall with interrupt processing at levels below total CPU-saturation. Never settle for high-level aggregate CPU utilization monitoring. Instead, drill down to the per-core level to watch out for asymmetry. Doing so is just good platform scientist work.
Between now and the time you should find yourself in a proof of concept test situation with Exadata, don’t hesitate to ask Oracle why–by their own words–both 128 cores and 160 cores are equally saturated when delivering maximum read IOPS in the database grid. After all, they charge the same per core (list price) to license Oracle Database on either of those processors.
Nice and Concise?
By the way, is there anyone who actually believes that both of these platforms top out at precisely 1.5 million flash read IOPS?
DISCLAIMER: This post tackles citations straight from Oracle published data sheets and published literature.
Filed under: oracle
BLOG UPDATE 2012.05.05: Updated the tar archive distribution file with some bug fixes. Simply preserve your slob.conf file and extract this tar archive over your prior SLOB install directory.
BLOG UPDATE 2012.05.04: The PDF README will no longer be bundled in with the tar archive.
BLOG UPDATE 2012.05.03: First time visitors should see the introductory page for SLOB.
About SLOB 2
I’ve already socialized the SLOB 2 update via twitter and a lot of friends have had early access to the kit. So, this is just a very brief blog entry to point to SLOB 2.
I’ve written a form of a release note that will be sufficient for current SLOB users to move forward rapidly with new SLOB 2 features. The note can be found here: SLOB 2 README.
Download The SLOB2 Kit
To download the software you can access the tar archive on EMC Syncplicity. Click SLOB 2 Tar Archive.
After downloading you should verify the md5sum:
$ md5sum 2013.05.05.slob2.tar e1e67a68bf253a02532ebd556a2ea782 2013.05.05.slob2.tar $
Filed under: oracle
Interested In EMC Flash Products Division Technology?
This is just a quick blog entry to announce sessions at EMC WORLD offered by speakers from EMC’s Flash Products Division. The sessions I’m speaking at is the one about accelerating SQL Server and Oracle with EMC XtremSW Cache.
Filed under: oracle
On March 26, 2013, Oracle announced a server refresh based on the new SPARC T5 processor. The press release proclaims SPARC T5 is the “World’s Fastest Microprocessor”—an assertion backed up with a list of several recent benchmark results included a published TPC-C result.
This article focuses on the recent SPARC T5 TPC-C result–a single-system world record that demonstrated extreme throughput. The SPARC T5 result bested the prior non-clustered Oracle Database result by 69%! To be fair, that was 69% better than a server based an Intel Xeon E7 processor slated to be obsolete this year (with the release of Ivy Bridge-EX). Nonetheless, throughput is throughput and throughput is all that matters, isn’t it?
What Costs Is What Matters
There are several ways to license Oracle Database. Putting aside low-end user-count license models and database editions other than Enterprise Edition leaves the most common license model which is based on per-processor licensing.
To layman, and seasoned veteran alike, mastering Oracle licensing is a difficult task. In fact, Oracle goes so far as to publish a Software Investment Guide that spells out the necessity for licensees to identify personnel within their organization responsible for coping with license compliance. Nonetheless, there are some simple licensing principles that play a significant role in understanding the relevance of any microprocessor being anointed the “fastest in the world.”
One would naturally presume “fastest” connotes cost savings when dealing with microprocessors. Deploying faster processors usually should mean fewer are needed thus yielding cost savings spanning datacenter physical and environmental savings as well as reduced per-processor licensing. Should, that is.
What is a Processor?
Oracle’s Software Investment Guide covers the various licensing models available to customers. Under the heading “Processor Metric” Oracle offers several situations where licensing by the processor is beneficial. The guide goes on to state:
The number of required licenses shall be determined by multiplying the total number of cores of the processor by a core processor licensing factor specified on the Oracle Processor Core Factor Table
As this quoted information suggests, the matter isn’t as simple as counting the number of processor “sockets” in a server. Oracle understands that more powerful processors allow their customers to achieve more throughput per core. So, Oracle could stand to lose a lot of revenue if per-core software licensing did not factor in the different performance characteristics of modern processors. In short, Oracle is compelled to charge more for faster processors.
As the Software Investment Guide states, one must consult the Oracle Processor Core Factor Table in order to determine list price for a specific processor. The Oracle Processor Core Factor Table has a two-columns—one for the processor make and model and the other for the Licensing Factor. Multiplying the Licensing Factor times the number of processor cores produces list price for Oracle software.
The Oracle Processor Core Factor Table is occasionally updated to reflect new processors that come into the marketplace. For example, the table was updated on October 2, 2010, September 6, 2011 and again on March 26, 2013 to correspond with the availability of Oracle’s T3, T4 and T5 processor respectively. As per the table, the T3 processor was assigned a Licensing Factor of .25 whereas the T4 and T5 are recognized as being more powerful and thus assigned a .5 factor. This means, of course, that any customer who migrated from T3 to T4 had to ante-up for higher-cost software—unless, of course, the T4 allowed the customer to reduce the number of cores in the deployment by 50%.
The World’s Fastest Microprocessor
According to dictionary definition, something that is deemed fast is a) characterized by quick motion, b) moving rapidly and/or c) taking a comparatively short time. None of these definitions imply throughput as we know it in the computer science world. In information processing, fast is all about latency whether service times for transactions or underlying processing associated with transactions such as memory latency.
The TPC-C specification stipulates that transaction response times are to be audited along with throughput. The most important transaction is, of course, New Order. That said, the response time of transactions on a multi-processing computer have little bearing on transaction throughput. This fact is clearly evident in published TPC-C results as will be revealed later in this article.
Figure 1 shows the New Order 90th-percentile response times for the three most recently published Oracle Database 11g TPC-C results. Included in the chart is a depiction of Oracle’s SPARC T5 demonstrating an admirable 13% improvement in New Order response times compared to current Intel two-socket Xeon server technology. That is somewhat fast. On the contrary, however, one year—to the day—before Oracle published the SPARC T5 result, Intel’s Xeon E7 processors exhibited 46% faster New Order response times than the SPARC T5. Now that, is fast.
Cost Is Still All That Matters
According to the Oracle Technology Global Price List dated March 15, 2013, Oracle Database Enterprise Edition with Real Application Clusters and Partitioning has a list price of USD $82,000 “per processor.” As explained above in this article, one must apply the processor core factor to get to the real list price for a given platform. It so happens that all three of the processors spoken of in Figure 1 have been assessed a core factor of .5 by Oracle. While all three of these processors are on par in the core factor category, they have have vastly different numbers of cores per socket. Moreover, the servers used in these three benchmarks had socket-counts ranging from 2 to 8. To that end, the SPARC T5 server had 128 cores, the Intel Xeon E7-8870 server had 80 cores and the Intel Xeon E5-2690 server had 16 cores.
Performance Per Oracle License
Given the core counts, license factor and throughput achieved for the three TPC-C benchmarks discussed in the previous section of this article, one can easily calculate the all-important performance-per-license attributes of each of the servers. Figure 2 presents TPC-C throughput per core and per Oracle license in a side-by-side visualization for the three recent TPC-C results.
The Importance of Response Times
In order to appreciate the rightful importance of response time in characterizing platform performance, consider the information presented in Figure 3. Figure 3 divides response time into TPC-C performance per core. Since the core factor is the same for each of these processors this is essentially weighing response time against license cost.
To add some historical perspective, Figure 3 also includes an Oracle Database 11g published TPC-C result from June 2008 using Intel’s Xeon 5400 family of processors which produced 20,271 TpmC/core and .2 seconds New Order response times. It is important to point out that the core factor has always been .5 for Xeon processors. As Figure 3 shows, SPARC T5 outperforms the 2008-era result by about 35%. On the other hand, the Intel two-socket Xeon E5 result delivers 31% better results in this type of performance assessment. Finally, the Intel 8-socket Xeon E7 result outperformed SPARC T5 by 76%. If customers care about both response time and cost these are important data points.
I accept the fact that there are many reasons for Oracle customers to remain on SPARC/Solaris—the most significant being postponing the effort of migrating to Intel-based servers. I would argue, however, that such a decision amounts to postponing the inevitable. That is my opinion, true, but countless Oracle shops made that move during the decade-long decline of Sun Microsystems market share. In fact, Oracle strongly marketed Intel servers running Real Application Clusters attached to conventional storage (mostly sourced from EMC) as a viable alternative to Oracle on Solaris.
I don’t speak lightly of the difficulty in moving off of SPARC/Solaris. In fact, I am very sympathetic of the difficulty such a task entails. What I can’t detail, in this blog entry, is a comparison between re-platforming from dilapidated SPARC servers and storage to something 21st-century—such as a converged infrastructure platform like VCE. It all seems like a pay-now or pay-later situation to me. Maybe readers with a 5-year vision for their datacenter can detail for us why one would want to gamble on the SPARC roadmap.
 As of the production date of this article, 2013 is the release target for the Ivy Bridge-EP 22nm die shrink next-generation improvement in Intel’s Xeon E5 family
Filed under: oracle
Can Oracle Database Release 2 (220.127.116.11) Properly Count Cores? No. Does It Matter All That Much? Not Really..
…and with a blog post title like that who would bother to read on? Only those who find modern platforms interesting…
This is just a short, technically-light blog post to point out an oddity I noticed the other day.
This information may well be known to everyone else in the world as far as I know, but it made me scratch my head so I’ll blog it. Maybe it will help some wayward googler someday.
AWR Reports – Sockets, Cores, CPUs
I’m blogging about the Sockets/Cores/CPUs reported in the top of an Oracle AWR report.
Consider the following from a Sandy Bridge Xeon (E5-2680 to be exact) based server.
Note: These are AWR reports so I obfuscated some of the data such as hostname and instance name.
WORKLOAD REPOSITORY report for DB Name DB Id Instance Inst Num Startup Time Release RAC ------------ ----------- ------------ -------- --------------- ----------- --- SLOB 3521916847 SLOB 1 29-Sep-12 05:27 18.104.22.168.0 NO Host Name Platform CPUs Cores Sockets Memory(GB) ---------------- -------------------------------- ---- ----- ------- ---------- NNNN Linux x86 64-bit 32 16 2 62.87
OK, that’s simple enough. We all know that E5-2680 is an 8-core part with SMT (Simultaneous Multi-threading) enabled. Further, this was a 2U 2-socket box. So, sure, 2 sockets and a sum of 16 cores. However, with SMT I get 32 “CPUs”. I’ve quoted CPU because they are logical processors.
The next example is a cut from an old Harpertown Xeon (Xeon 5400) AWR report. Again, we all know the attributes of that CPU. It was pre-QPI, pre-SMT and it had 4 cores. This was a 2-socket box—so no mystery here. AWR is reporting 2 sockets, a sum of 8 cores and since they are simple cores we see 8 “CPUs”.
WORKLOAD REPOSITORY report for DB Name DB Id Instance Inst Num Startup Time Release RAC ------------ ----------- ------------ -------- --------------- ----------- --- XXXX 1247149781 xxxx1 1 27-Feb-13 11:32 22.214.171.124.0 YES Host Name Platform CPUs Cores Sockets Memory(GB) ---------------- -------------------------------- ---- ----- ------- ---------- xxxxxxxx.mmmmmm. Linux x86 64-bit 8 8 2 62.88
Now The Oddity
Next I’ll show a modern AMD processor. First, I’ll grep some interesting information from /proc/cpuinfo and then I’ll show the top of an AWR report.
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | egrep 'processor|vendor_id|model name' processor : 31 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD model name : AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6272 $ head -10 mix_awr_16_8k.16.16 WORKLOAD REPOSITORY report for DB Name DB Id Instance Inst Num Startup Time Release RAC ------------ ----------- ------------ -------- --------------- ----------- --- XXXXXX 501636137 XXXXXX 1 24-Feb-13 12:21 126.96.36.199.0 NO Host Name Platform CPUs Cores Sockets Memory(GB) ---------------- -------------------------------- ---- ----- ------- ---------- oel63 Linux x86 64-bit 32 16 2 252.39
The system is, indeed, a 2-socket box. And cpuinfo is properly showing the processor model number (Opteron 6200 family). Take note as well that the tail of cpuinfo output is CPU 31 so the Operating System believes there are 32 “CPUs”. However, AWR is showing 2 sockets, a sum of 16 cores and 32 CPUs. That’s where the mystery arises. See, the Operton 6200 16-core parts (such as the 6272) are a multi-chip module (MCM) consisting of two soldered dies each with 4 “bulldozer modules.” And never forget that AMD does not do multithreading. So that’s 2x2x4 cores in each socket. However, AWR is reporting a sum of 16 cores in the box. Since there are two sockets, AWR should be reporting 2 sockets, a sum of 32 cores and 32 CPUs. Doing so would more accurately follow the convention we grew accustomed to in the pre-Intel QPI days—as was the case above with the Xeon 5400.
In summary, none of this matters much. The Operating System knows the cores are there and Oracle thinks there are 32 “CPUs”. If you should run across a 2-socket AMD Operton 6200-based system and see this oddity, well, it won’t be so odd any longer.
Multiple Multi-Core Modules on Multiple Dies Glued Together (MCM)?
…and two of them in one system? That’s the “N” In NUMA!
Can anyone guess how many NUMA nodes there are when a 2-Socket box with AMD 6272 parts is booted at the BIOS with NUMA on? Does anyone know what the model is called when one boots NUMA x64 hardware with NUMA disabled in the BIOS (or grub.conf numa=off)? Well, SUMA, of course!
Filed under: oracle
Oaktable World 2012 was an event held during last year’s Oracle OpenWorld 2012 at a venue within walking distance of the Moscone Center. More information about Oaktable World can be found here.
The venue lent itself to good deep-technical discussions and free-thinking. However, as people who attended OpenWorld 2012 know, San Francisco was enduring near all-time record high temperatures. It must have been 98F inside the venue. The heat was only so much fun. I had to throw in a pretty nasty head cold. All of that aside, I took the podium one afternoon and was pleased to have a full house to present to.
The slides I brought touched on such topics as performance per core across generations of x64 hardware and methodologies for studying such things. I also spoke of Intel’s Turbo Boost 2.0 and how folks should add clock frequency monitoring tools to their standard bad of tricks.
The final master of the video is the fruit of Marcin Przepiorowski’s labor. For some reason there was a lot of audio/video troubles in the master. Marcin really outdid himself to stitch all this back together. Thanks, Marcin.
So, a lot was lost from the session—to include the Q/A. However, I’d like to offer a link to the video and open this post up for questions on the material.
The video can be found here.
Filed under: oracle