Return-Path: X-Original-To: oracle-l@orafaq.com Delivered-To: oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: from puck1183.startdedicated.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by puck1183.startdedicated.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47FD196029A for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:30:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by puck1183.startdedicated.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:30:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id EAAD4244CF; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: turing.freelists.org; dkim=fail (verification failed; insecure key) header.i=@gmail.com; dkim-adsp=none (insecure policy) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at turing.freelists.org Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dWMi6A7KUHkL; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id A52BB24479; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 2411A24465 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7stF+iGGuLn for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com [209.85.217.173]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id B76D1243AF for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 10so2555508lbf.18 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ALEmr2p9Gsnsi90hA6/BE0wVvAAQiPhwY+Ns9vHR3ng=; b=Ucsb+Ch+LP/dwiGDg07AEBKq+hWjPLk1ZmV974ijbX5tU6Ie4dUFJ+mPyH7dRpw3we 7EM3fXPcocGqVv7COU33v6HVASEUbqWIOqTKICK4Gk996xGkaqi1HS1doHDE/ciJ5kc8 B1o9zwtH4ZmlPFCbMuL3IGrDTOdq2Jjg28kyWmKCRlzCkotKfzChHlhZU6KUi0/vXZV8 8OqH5fsopy3TtHN3UPi7bxmHKEIKp23RD/2f+5yxv81JYY9OVuq0Y8N1/RjQqjtSC5RQ sM0uhe+N+u8K0/IyksJDdfW+AtzGQmU3Vb7FleBqV6LsSBOn2dNzgSBgERqZ8Dqjgh7s cl/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.198.39 with SMTP id iz7mr2600501lbc.24.1375975737324; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.51.52 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:28:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: POWER vs Intel for DB loads From: Dennis Williams To: rjoralist2@society.servebeer.com Cc: "oracle-l@freelists.org" Content-type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 50130 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: oracledba.williams@gmail.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: oracledba.williams@gmail.com List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: oracle-l X-List-ID: oracle-l List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: oracle-l How about starting at: http://www.tpc.org/information/benchmarks.asp Dennis Williams On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Rich Jesse wrote: > Hey all, > > We're currently running our production 11.2 DBs on POWER6 (P550) and will > be > replacing the server soon. From what I've been able to gather, the raw > single-threaded "throughput" improvement in the POWER7+ (P750) is around > 25%-30%. Yes, I'm fully aware of the fallacies of marketing numbers. > > One of my concerns with staying with POWER is the per-core licensing cost > of > the DB. I'm looking to (hopefully) double the number of cores for the new > server, so of course, I'd like to see how a set of Intel Xeons (model TBD) > under Oracle Linux could compare. > > I understand that until we have the hardware here for me to actually apply > our workloads, I won't really know. But timelines being what they are, > there is no time for trials, so we need to make our best informed decision > now. One caveat is that the vast majority of our workload is (for now) > concurrent single-threaded transactions, both on the DB and the app server. > I would think that we should benefit more from CPUs with faster cores > instead of more cores, considering economics (licensing) as part of > queueing > (thanks, Cary!). > > Summary: Single-threaded DB performance of POWER7+ vs Intel Xeon? > > Sorry that there's a ton of info from the decision-making process that's > missing here. I don't think many would appreciate a 200KB post... :) > > Thanks! > Rich > > -- > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l