Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 6, 2012 1:42 am wrote:
> Kira (kirsc.delete@this.aeterna.ru) on August 6, 2012 1:25 am wrote:
> >
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 6, 2012 1:02 am
>
> > wrote:
> > > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on
> August 5,
> > 2012 3:49 pm
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> Oracle keep supporting the (far
> > slower) M-series
> > > SPARC?
> >
> > >
> > > > Honestly,
> > > > the
> > 'Itanium has
> bad performance' excuse
> > > makes no sense. It's definitely
> >
> faster
> > > > than Niagara and potentially the
> > > Fujitsu
>
> > M-series.
> > >
> > > Potentially!? What it supposed to mean?
> Wait for
> > >
> > Poulson?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd expect
> > > > >
> > >
> > > fully loaded
> M9000
> > > (64-socket SPARC64 VII+) to be approximately
> > twice
> faster
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > than fully loaded
> Superdome2
> > (32-socket Tukwila) in majority of
> > > >
> >
> > commercial
> > > >
> > > applications.
> > > >
>
> > > > > Do you have a hard data
> > >
> > that could
>
> > > > contradict my
> > > > > expectations?
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > I think
> > > the relevant comparison point
> is
> > > > Poulson,
> > as it should be out any day
> > >
> now.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a little
> > surprised that they
>
> > > > only have 32S systems,
> > > since they used to
> >
> scale up to 64S...and now they have
> > > > better
> > >
> >
> interconnects.
> > >
> > > That's the same as Fujitsu. Back in
> dual-core days
> > they used
> > > to scale up to 128S, but now the
> biggest M9000 is 64S.
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > But I
>
> > > don't perceive Itanium as being
> > dramatically
> > > >
> slower than Fujitsu.
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> DK
> > >
> > > Well, perception is one thing and the facts is
> something
> > else.
> > > We
> > > certainly don't have enough
> facts to know whether top HP
> > gear is "dramatically
> > > slower"
> that than top Fujitsu M-series or just a
> > little slower. But, IMO, we
>
> > > have enough info to be sure that Kira's
> > original claim
> (M-series is far slower
> > > than Integrity) is false.
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> > > Anyway, the comparison between supporting Itanium
> >
> > and
> > supporting M-series was invalid regardless of relative
> performance, for
> > more
> > > than one reason:
> > > 1. Oracle
> resells M-series. So, it's partly
> > their own.
> > > 2.
> > >
> Incremental effort required to support M-series on
> > top of T-series (the
> same OS,
> > > the same ISA, mostly the same toolchain) is
> > far lower
> than required to support
> > > HP-UX/Itanium on top of ... well ...
> >
> nothing.
> > >
> >
> > Where's this proof that Tuk is slower than S64
> VII? I posted
> > SPEC numbers. Are you seriously claiming that a chip that
> has significantly
> > lower SPECint numbers, a smaller cache, a shared bus,
> an off-chip memory
> > controller, and supports an older generation of
> memory... is faster? Evidence,
> > please? Or at least a rationale?
>
> Well,
> see TCP-H below.
> But even your own SpecInt_rate scores show single Tukwila
> socket slower than *two* Sparc64 VII+
> sockets.
>
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2010q4/cpu2006-20101201-13867
> .html
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2010q2/cpu2006-20100426-10756.html
>
>
> 882 vs 531
> Is it not enough?
>

Your original claim was that 64s M9K would be twice as fast as 32s SD2. That's not at all supported by, well, anything aside from that TPC-H result.

And while we're dipping into TPC-H, SPARC T4 is the fastest processor in the world. I think we both know just how true that is...