blaine (myname.delete@this.acm.org) on August 6, 2012 12:33 pm wrote:
> Kira (kirsc.delete@this.aeterna.ru) on August 6, 2012 1:46 am wrote:
> >
> 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...
>
> Are you comparing a 64 core 8 socket
> sparc result with a 32 core 8 socket Itanium blade result.
>

No, I don't think anyone is, given that there is not currently an 8-socket-capable 8-core SPARC, and likely won't be until T5.