Performance of four Intel-and AMD-based servers SMB servers using WebBench, LoadSim, and SysBench We measured the performance while running multiple benchmarks simultaneously on small and medium-sized business (SMB) focused servers using the following processors: Intel Pentium® Dual-core processor E2160, Quad-Core Intel Xeon® processor X3220, and Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X3350.
Performance of three Intel-based SMB servers using WebBench, LoadSim, and SysBench We measured the performance while running multiple benchmarks simultaneously on small and medium-sized business (SMB) focused servers using the following processors: Intel Pentium® Dual-core processor E2160, Quad-Core Intel Xeon® processor X3220, and Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X3350.
WebBench performance on Intel®-based SMB servers We tested three dual- and quad-core small and medium-sized business (SMB) focused servers: Intel Pentium Dual-core processor E2160-based server, Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X3220-based server, and Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E5335-based server.
SysBench performance on Intel®-based SMB servers We tested three dual- and quad-core small and medium-sized business (SMB) focused servers: Intel Pentium Dual-core processor E2160-based server, Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X3220-based server, and Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E5335-based server.
Performance of three Intel®-based SMB servers using WebBench, LoadSim, and SysBench We measured performance while running multiple benchmarks simultaneously on three dual- and quad-core small and medium-sized business (SMB) focused servers: Intel Pentium Dual-core processor E2160-based server, Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X3220-based server, and Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E5335-based server.
Oracle database performance on Sun and Dell servers running Solaris We measured the Oracle database performance of the following two servers running Solaris: Dell PowerEdge R900 running Oracle 10g R2 Enterprise Edition on Solaris 10 and Sun Fire V440 running Oracle 9i Enterprise Edition on Solaris 9. We compared a typical existing installation with a typical new purchase configuration, to analyze the experience of staying with Solaris and Oracle but migrating from RISC to x86.
Migrating from Solaris 9 Enterprise Edition on Sun Fire V440 with Oracle 9i to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2 on Dell PowerEdge R900 with Oracle 11g Complete guide and Summary PT has performed hands-on testing and research and drawing on real-world experiences to document best practices and help systems administrators and database administrators simplify operations and take full advantage of new features in RHEL 5.2 and Oracle 11g.
Migrating from Solaris 9 Enterprise Edition on Sun Fire V440 with Oracle 9i to Solaris 10 Enterprise Edition on Dell PowerEdge R900 with Oracle 10g R2 Summarizes and then details the tested and validated approach that PT and Dell recommend for this database migration. Complete guide and Summary.
Virtualized Exchange workload performance comparison of end-to-end solutions with iSCSI storage connections: Dell PowerEdge 2950 with Dell EqualLogic PS5000 vs. HP ProLiant DL385 with HP StorageWorks EVA 4400 We combined multiple virtual machines with a disk-intensive workload to place a heavy load on both the server and the storage. Thus, we measured the performance of the overall solution--server and storage.
vConsolidate performance and power on Intel-based servers running Citrix XenServer 5 We tested the performance of Citrix’s XenServer 5 virtual machine manager on quad-processor servers using the following processors: Intel Xeon processor X7460 and Intel Xeon processor X7350.
Virtualized Exchange workload performance comparison of end-to-end solutions with iSCSI storage connections: Dell PowerEdge R900 with Dell EqualLogic PS5000 vs. HP Proliant DL585 with HP StorageWorks EVA 4400 Each server ran multiple Exchange 2007 workloads, one per virtual machine (VM). Each VM’s workload used the Microsoft Exchange Load Generator. By combining multiple virtual machines with a disk-intensive workload, the test placed a heavy load on both the server and the storage. Thus, it measured the performance of the overall solution--server and storage.
vConsolidate performance and power on IBM and HP quad-core multiprocessor Intel processor-based servers (full report and one-page summary) We measured power and performance with Intel’s vConsolidate OEM version 1 workload using VMware ESX Server 3.5 on three servers: the four-way HP ProLiant DL580 G5, the four-way IBM System x3850 M2, and the eight-way IBM System x3950 M2.
vConsolidate performance on IBM and HP quad-core multiprocessor Intel processor-based servers (full report and one-page summary) We measured power and performance with Intel’s vConsolidate OEM version 1 workload using VMware ESX Server 3.5 on two servers: HP ProLiant DL580 G5 and IBM System x3850 M2.
vConsolidate performance on dual-socket Intel- and AMD-based servers We measured performance with Intel’s vConsolidate OEM version 1 workload on dual-socket servers using three processors: Quad-Core AMD Opteron 2347 (1.9GHz), Quad-Core Intel Xeon X5365 (3.0GHz), and Quad-Core Intel Xeon X5460 (3.16GHz). Note: The AMD processor contains an erratum in the translation lookaside buffer (TLB). According to AMD and industry reports, implementing the BIOS workaround would likely reduce performance. SuperMicro confirmed that the BIOS in the AMD-based servers in this test did not implement the workaround for the AMD TLB erratum.
vConsolidate results on multi-processor Intel and AMD processor-based servers. We compared virtualization performance on a quad-processor, quad-core server using Intel’s new Tigerton processor with that of two other 4P servers and 1 DP system.
SPECfp_rate performance on Dell, HP, and IBM servers We tested three servers: Dell PowerEdge 2970 with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2222 SE processors, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors, and IBM System x3650 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECfp_rate power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM servers We tested four systems: Dell PowerEdge 2970 with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2222 SE processors, Dell PowerEdge 2970 Energy Smart with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2212 HE processors, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors, and IBM System x3650 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECfp_rate_base performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We tested three servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECint_rate_base performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We tested three servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7340-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7340-based (2.93 GHz) server.
Linpack performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We tested three servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7340-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7340-based (2.93 GHz) server.
We evaluated the performance, power consumption, and out-of-box experience of the Dell PowerEdge 2970 and PowerEdge 2970 Energy Smart servers. We compared them with the HP ProLiant DL380 G5 and the IBM System x3650.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECfp_rate performance on Dell, HP, and IBM servers We tested three servers: Dell PowerEdge 2970 with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2222 SE processors, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors, and IBM System x3650 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECfp_rate power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM servers We tested four systems: Dell PowerEdge 2970 with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2222 SE processors, Dell PowerEdge 2970 Energy Smart with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2212 HE processors, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors, and IBM System x3650 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM servers We set up three servers: Dell PowerEdge 2970 Server, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 Storage Server, and IBM System x3650. Due to differences in packaging and design, the times for each step of the setup process for the three systems varied considerably.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM servers We compared the out-of-box experience of the following three servers: Dell PowerEdge 2970 Server, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 Storage Server, and IBM System x3650. Due to differences in packaging and design, the times for each step of the setup process for the three systems varied considerably.
Comparative performance test Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 AS on Intel-based server Red Hat, Inc. and Intel Corp. commissioned us to compare the performance of three servers, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7340-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7340-based (2.93 GHz) server on different workloads. This presentation, which we gave at Fall IDF in San Francisco on September 19, 2007, summarizes our findings on three of the workloads.
Three SPEC workloads test Intel- and IBM-based servers We used SPECjbb2005 and two SPEC CPU2000 workloads to measure the performance and power consumption of servers with the following processors: the Intel Itanium 2 9050 and IBM System p5 550Q POWER5+.
SPECjbb performance and power consumption on multi-processor Intel- and AMD-based blade serversWe tested the following single blades in their respective enclosures: Dell PowerEdge M905 (Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor 8354 [2.20 GHz, 75W]), HP ProLiant BL680c G5 (Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor E7310 [1.60 GHz, 80W]), HP ProLiant BL685c G5 (Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor 8354 [2.20 GHz, 75W]), and IBM BladeCenter LS42 (Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor 8356 [2.30 GHz, 75W]).
Windows Server 2008 SPECjbb2005 performance and power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers We tested three dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
Intel Modular Server performance on simultaneous email, Web server, Java, and database workloads We measured the system performance of the Intel Modular Server built on Intel Multi-Flex Technology to compare the performance of each Server Compute Module in two states: with that one Server Compute Module running alone and with all Server Compute Modules running simultaneously.
We evaluated the performance, power consumption, and out-of-box setup experience of the following dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600 Blade System, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers We compared the out-of-box setup experience of the following dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600 Blade System, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
SPECjbb2005 performance and power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers We tested three dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600 Blade System, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell and HP blade servers We set up two systems: a Dell PowerEdge 1955 Blade System and an HP BladeSystem c-Class. Due to differences in packaging and design, there was a considerable difference in setup times for the two systems.
