Search Results

Search found 5756 results on 231 pages for 'cpu utilization'.

Page 28/231 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • 32-bit / 64-bit processors - what is that feature officially called?

    - by JW01
    I see talk of CPU's being either 32-bit or 64-bit processors. Information which is often required on download pages But what is that feature officially called. i.e What's the inverse of saying "I have a 64-bit processor"? I want to say: The ??? of my processor is 64 bit What is the correct term to use for ??? I have looked at a random product on the Intel site and I suspect the correct word for this is "Instruction Set", but I'm not sure.

    Read the article

  • How to impove Ubuntu performance on netbook

    - by Alexey Shytikov
    Most recent Ubuntu 12.04 seems to be quite nice and Unity (3D/2D) works fine for me, however not on my old Acer Aspire One any more. There was a times, when I switched from Windows XP to Ubuntu and was happy about system looks, effects and speed... now I attend to think that XP was really great comparing with 12.04. I have found similar questions here but no reasonable answer: how to lower CPU usage for Unity (3D/2D) and memory consumption for Ubuntu 12.04. With new interface I could not find how to disable background services... It's Linux, it's should be the way to optimize without buying new PC... Please share your recipe!

    Read the article

  • Load balancing on Ubuntu Server

    - by SabreWolfy
    I have Ubuntu 10.04.4 server (32-bit) installed on a headless quad-core machine with 2GB RAM. I'm running a command-line analysis which is analyzing a large amount of data, but which does not require a large amount of RAM. The tool does not provide any multi-threading, so the CPU load is sitting at 1.00 (or sometimes just a little over). I ran top and pressed 1 to see the load on each of the cores and noticed that "Cpu1" is always running at 100%. I thought that the load would be distributed between the cores, rather than loading one core all the time. I'm sure I've seen this load-balancing behaviour before in Ubuntu or Debian Desktop versions. Why would the Server edition work differently? The analysis will likely take several hours to run, so loading one core at 100% for many hours while the other 3 remain idle is surely not the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Open Source Utilization Questions: How do you lone wold programmers best take advantage of open sour

    - by Funkyeah
    For Clarity: So you come up with an idea for a new program and want to start hacking, but you also happen to be a one-man army. How do you programming dynamos best find and utilize existing open-source software to give you the highest jumping off point possible when diving into your new project? When you do jump in where the shit do you start from? Any imaginary scenarios would be welcome, e.g. a shitty example might be utilizing a open-source database with an open-source IM client as a starting off point to a make a new client where you could tag and store conversations and query those tags at a later time.

    Read the article

  • How to utilize my computation resources.

    - by carter-boater
    Hi all, I wrote a program to solve a complicated problem. This program is just a c# console application and doesn't do console.write until the computation part is finished, so output won't affect the performance. The program is like this: static void Main(string[] args) { Thread WorkerThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Run), StackSize); WorkerThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest; WorkerThread.Start(); Console.WriteLine("Worker thread is runing..."); WorkerThread.Join(); } Now it takes 3 minute to run, when I open my task manager, I see it only take 12% of the cpu time. I actually have a i7 intel cpu with 6G three channel DDR3 memory. I am wondering how I can improve the utilization of my hardware. Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • CPU Affinity Masks (Putting Threads on different CPUs)

    - by hahuang65
    I have 4 threads, and I am trying to set thread 1 to run on CPU 1, thread 2 on CPU 2, etc. However, when I run my code below, the affinity masks are returning the correct values, but when I do a sched_getcpu() on the threads, they all return that they are running on CPU 4. Anybody know what my problem here is? Thanks in advance! #define _GNU_SOURCE #include <stdio.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <sched.h> #include <errno.h> void *pthread_Message(char *message) { printf("%s is running on CPU %d\n", message, sched_getcpu()); } int main() { pthread_t thread1, thread2, thread3, thread4; pthread_t threadArray[4]; cpu_set_t cpu1, cpu2, cpu3, cpu4; char *thread1Msg = "Thread 1"; char *thread2Msg = "Thread 2"; char *thread3Msg = "Thread 3"; char *thread4Msg = "Thread 4"; int thread1Create, thread2Create, thread3Create, thread4Create, i, temp; CPU_ZERO(&cpu1); CPU_SET(1, &cpu1); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread1, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu1); printf("Set returned by pthread_getaffinity_np() contained:\n"); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu1)) printf("CPU1: CPU %d\n", i); CPU_ZERO(&cpu2); CPU_SET(2, &cpu2); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread2, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu2); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu2)) printf("CPU2: CPU %d\n", i); CPU_ZERO(&cpu3); CPU_SET(3, &cpu3); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread3, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu3); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu3)) printf("CPU3: CPU %d\n", i); CPU_ZERO(&cpu4); CPU_SET(4, &cpu4); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread4, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu4); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu4)) printf("CPU4: CPU %d\n", i); thread1Create = pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread1Msg); thread2Create = pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread2Msg); thread3Create = pthread_create(&thread3, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread3Msg); thread4Create = pthread_create(&thread4, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread4Msg); pthread_join(thread1, NULL); pthread_join(thread2, NULL); pthread_join(thread3, NULL); pthread_join(thread4, NULL); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • The Utilization of Software Engineering Development Principles

    - by Chance
    Being a CS student I've had to take a course in basic software engineering. I was a little curious to find such elaborate "software development processes", like the spiral model, the waterfall model, et cetera. Some of these methodologies seem a little antiquated to me and, after speaking with several employed developers, I can't seem to find anyone who actually adheres to these models. Does anyone here have experience working under the guidance of these models? Were they useful to you and your team during the development of your product? Or are these models just some way to communicate a sense of progression to interested parties outside of the development team?

    Read the article

  • My cpus are powered down periodically

    - by mgiammarco
    I post here because I am using Ubuntu but this is probably an hardware problem. Since I bought my new setup with AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 635 Processor and asus m4a89td pro/usb3 motherboard with ecc ram I have stuttering on videos. I was using ubuntu 11.10 now ubuntu 12.10. Looking at syslog I have found that periodically (I notice only on videos but it happens always) this thing happens: Mar 6 23:36:42 virtual1 kernel: [28564.375548] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline Mar 6 23:36:42 virtual1 kernel: [28564.380751] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline Mar 6 23:36:42 virtual1 kernel: [28564.394947] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.917021] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x1 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.928015] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0xf9 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.928372] [Firmware Bug]: cpu 1, try to use APIC500 (LVT offset 0) for vector 0x400, but the register is already in use for vector 0xf9 on another cpu Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.928378] perf: IBS APIC setup failed on cpu #1 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.931305] process: Switch to broadcast mode on CPU1 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.934255] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 2 APIC 0x2 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.945554] [Firmware Bug]: cpu 2, try to use APIC500 (LVT offset 0) for vector 0x400, but the register is already in use for vector 0xf9 on another cpu Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.945558] perf: IBS APIC setup failed on cpu #2 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.948124] process: Switch to broadcast mode on CPU2 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.949644] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x3 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.960838] [Firmware Bug]: cpu 3, try to use APIC500 (LVT offset 0) for vector 0x400, but the register is already in use for vector 0xf9 on another cpu Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.960840] perf: IBS APIC setup failed on cpu #3 Mar 6 23:36:48 virtual1 kernel: [28569.962953] process: Switch to broadcast mode on CPU3 I have: updated bios; tried all (really) bios options; changed ram; changed psu and cpu cooler; tried 3.8.1 kernel. What can I do now? Please help me! Thanks, Mario

    Read the article

  • CPU/JVM/JBoss 7 slows down over time

    - by lukas
    I'm experiencing performance slow down on JBoss 7.1.1 Final. I wrote simple program that demostrates this behavior. I generate an array of 100,000 of random integers and run bubble sort on it. @Model public class PerformanceTest { public void proceed() { long now = System.currentTimeMillis(); int[] arr = new int[100000]; for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { arr[i] = (int) (Math.random() * 200000); } long now2 = System.currentTimeMillis(); System.out.println((now2 - now) + "ms took to generate array"); now = System.currentTimeMillis(); bubbleSort(arr); now2 = System.currentTimeMillis(); System.out.println((now2 - now) + "ms took to bubblesort array"); } public void bubbleSort(int[] arr) { boolean swapped = true; int j = 0; int tmp; while (swapped) { swapped = false; j++; for (int i = 0; i < arr.length - j; i++) { if (arr[i] > arr[i + 1]) { tmp = arr[i]; arr[i] = arr[i + 1]; arr[i + 1] = tmp; swapped = true; } } } } } Just after I start the server, it takes approximately 22 seconds to run this code. After few days of JBoss 7.1.1. running, it takes 330 sec to run this code. In both cases, I launch the code when the CPU utilization is very low (say, 1%). Any ideas why? I run the server with following arguments: -Xms1280m -Xmx2048m -XX:MaxPermSize=2048m -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true -Dorg.jboss.resolver.warning=true -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=3600000 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=3600000 -Djboss.modules.system.pkgs=org.jboss.byteman -Djava.awt.headless=true -Duser.timezone=UTC -Djboss.server.default.config=standalone-full.xml -Xrunjdwp:transport=dt_socket,address=8787,server=y,suspend=n I'm running it on Linux 2.6.32-279.11.1.el6.x86_64 with java version "1.7.0_07". It's within J2EE applicaiton. I use CDI so I have a button on JSF page that will call method "proceed" on @RequestScoped component PerformanceTest. I deploy this as separate war file and even if I undeploy other applications, it doesn't change the performance. It's a virtual machine that is sharing CPUs with another machine but that one doesn't consume anything. Here's yet another observation: when the server is after fresh start and I run the bubble sort, It utilizes 100% of one processor core. It never switches to another core or drops utilization below 95%. However after some time the server is running and I'm experiencing the performance problems, the method above is utilizing CPU core usually 100%, however I just found out from htop that this task is being switched very often to other cores. That is, at the beginning it's running on core #1, after say 2 seconds it's running on #5 then after say 2 seconds #8 etc. Furthermore, the utilization is not kept at 100% at the core but sometimes drops to 80% or even lower. For the server after fresh start, even though If I simulate a load, it never switches the task to another core.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Application Server Performance Monitoring and Tuning (CPU load high)

    - by Berkay
    Oracle Application Server Performance Monitoring and Tuning (CPU load high) i have just hired by a company and my boss give me a performance issue to solve as soon as possible. I don't have any experience with the Java EE before at the server side. Let me begin what i learned about the system and still couldn't find the solution: We have an Oracle Application Server (10.1.) and Oracle Database server (9.2.), the software guys wrote a kind of big J2EE project (X project) using specifically JSF 1.2 with Ajax which is only used in this project. They actively use PL/SQL in their code. So, we started the application server (Solaris machine), everything seems OK. users start using the app starting Monday from different locations (app 200 have user accounts,i just checked and see that the connection pool is set right, the session are active only 15 minutes). After sometime (2 days) CPU utilization gets high,%60, at night it is still same nothing changed (the online user amount is nearly 1 or 2 at this time), even it starts using the CPU allocated for other applications on the same server because they freed If we don't restart the server, the utilization becomes %90 following 2 days, application is so slow that end users starts calling. The main problem is software engineers say that code is clear, and the System and DBA managers say that we have the correct configuration,the other applications seems OK why this problem happens only for X application. I start copying the DB to a test platform and upgrade it to the latest version, also did in same with the application server (Weblogic) if there is a bug or not. i only tested by myself only one user and weblogic admin panel i can track the threads and dump them. i noticed that there are some threads showing as a hogging. when i checked the manuals and control the trace i see that it directs me the line number where PL/SQL code is called from a .java file. The software eng. says that yes we have really complex PL/SQL codes but what's the relation with Application server? this is the problem of DB server, i guess they're right... I know the question has many holes, i'd like to give more in detail but i appreciate the way you guide me. Thanks in advance ... Edit: The server both in CPU and Memory enough to run more complex applications

    Read the article

  • Nginx php-fpm high cpu usage

    - by Piotr Kaluza
    I have a problem with a high traffic wordpress, super high CPU load under nginx php-fpm, I am caching with apc, and memcached, spent 2-3 days tweaking configs and looking for answers it seems to me that php-fpm takes up all the cpu available no matter how many max_children i set if i set 5 then the load is 20% each, if i set 20 then the load adds up till 90% i tried static and dynamic server is 2x3.0Ghz 6GB Ram SSD in raid 10 on ubuntu 12.04 x64 utpime: 17:27:51 up 2:19, 1 user, load average: 29.79, 28.08, 26.29 what can be the issue?

    Read the article

  • Postmaster uses excessive CPU and Disk Writes

    - by wolfcastle
    using PostgreSQL 9.1.2 I'm seeing excessive CPU usage and large amounts of writes to disk from postmaster tasks. This happens even while my application is doing almost nothing (10s of inserts per MINUTE). There are a reasonable number of connections open however. I've been trying to determine what in my application is causing this. I'm pretty newb with postgresql, and haven't gotten anywhere so far. I've turned on some logging options in my config file, and looked at connections in the pg_stat_activity table, but they are all idle. Yet each connection consumes ~ 50% CPU, and is writing ~15M/s to disk (reading nothing). I'm basically using the stock postgresql.conf with very little tweaks. I'd appreciate any advice or pointers on what I can do to track this down. Here is a sample of what top/iotop is showing me: Cpu(s): 18.9%us, 14.4%sy, 0.0%ni, 53.4%id, 11.8%wa, 0.0%hi, 1.5%si, 0.0%st Mem: 32865916k total, 7263720k used, 25602196k free, 575608k buffers Swap: 16777208k total, 0k used, 16777208k free, 4464212k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 17057 postgres 20 0 236m 33m 13m R 45.0 0.1 73:48.78 postmaster 17188 postgres 20 0 219m 15m 11m R 42.3 0.0 61:45.57 postmaster 17963 postgres 20 0 219m 16m 11m R 42.3 0.1 27:15.01 postmaster 17084 postgres 20 0 219m 15m 11m S 41.7 0.0 63:13.64 postmaster 17964 postgres 20 0 219m 17m 12m R 41.7 0.1 27:23.28 postmaster 18688 postgres 20 0 219m 15m 11m R 41.3 0.0 63:46.81 postmaster 17088 postgres 20 0 226m 24m 12m R 41.0 0.1 64:39.63 postmaster 24767 postgres 20 0 219m 17m 12m R 41.0 0.1 24:39.24 postmaster 18660 postgres 20 0 219m 14m 9.9m S 40.7 0.0 60:51.52 postmaster 18664 postgres 20 0 218m 15m 11m S 40.7 0.0 61:39.61 postmaster 17962 postgres 20 0 222m 19m 11m S 40.3 0.1 11:48.79 postmaster 18671 postgres 20 0 219m 14m 9m S 39.4 0.0 60:53.21 postmaster 26168 postgres 20 0 219m 15m 10m S 38.4 0.0 59:04.55 postmaster Total DISK READ: 0.00 B/s | Total DISK WRITE: 195.97 M/s TID PRIO USER DISK READ DISK WRITE SWAPIN IO> COMMAND 17962 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 14.83 M/s 0.00 % 0.25 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 17084 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 15.53 M/s 0.00 % 0.24 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 17963 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 15.00 M/s 0.00 % 0.24 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 17188 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 14.80 M/s 0.00 % 0.24 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 17964 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 15.50 M/s 0.00 % 0.24 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 18664 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 15.13 M/s 0.00 % 0.23 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 17088 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 14.71 M/s 0.00 % 0.13 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 18688 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 14.72 M/s 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 24767 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 14.93 M/s 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 18671 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 16.14 M/s 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 17057 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 13.58 M/s 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 26168 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 15.50 M/s 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle 18660 be/4 postgres 0.00 B/s 15.85 M/s 0.00 % 0.00 % postgres: aggw aggw [local] idle

    Read the article

  • How to get Remote Processes on Windows 2003 with cpu percentage

    - by Brettski
    I have a production server with it's cpu's running excessively high. Except in critical circumstances nobody is allowed to logon to servers during non maintenance times. I am looking for an application I can use to look at the processes on the remote server which include CPU % usage. An application like top. Windows native tasklist.exe doesn't show percentage, nor does sysinternals pslist.exe. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Vmware cpu allocation for a spiking database server

    - by user1552172
    I have a database server with many poorly written queries that causes the sql server to spike then drop constantly ( a massive start from scratch is happening). I need to know if the cpu allocation on the vm to expand as needed is best practice for a case like this. I am wondering if the esxi platform cant expand as fast as the spikes happen. I am curious what is best practice for vm cpu allocation on sql server (with horribly written queries)

    Read the article

  • Diagnostic high load sys cpu - low io

    - by incous
    A Linux server running Ubuntu 12.04 LTS with LAMP has a strange behaviour since last week: - cpu %sys higher than before, nearly equal %usr (before that, %sys just little compare with %usr) - IO reduce by half or 1/3 compare with the week before I try to diagnostic the process/cpu by some command (top/vmstat/mpstat/sar), and see that maybe it's a bit high on interrupt timer/resched. I don't know what that means, now open to any suggestion.

    Read the article

  • How cpu writes data to dynamic RAM

    - by Krit
    Hello, I would like to know what kind of electrical signals does a cpu send to a dynamic RAM when it wants to write one bit (a 1 or 0). Is it simply that cpu sends just a single electric pulse, and if that electric pulse's voltage is higher than a certain level, it charges the capacitor to a voltage level that is "1" and if it is at a lower voltage band, it charges capacitor to level that it is "0"?

    Read the article

  • Get Remote Processes on Windows 2003 with cpu percentage

    - by Brettski
    I have a production server with it's cpu's running excessively high. Except in critical circumstances nobody is allowed to logon to servers during non maintenance times. I am looking for an application I can use to look at the processes on the remote server which include CPU % usage. An application like top. Windows native tasklist.exe doesn't show percentage, nor does sysinternals pslist.exe. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Logging process' CPU utilisation

    - by frinky
    Hello everyone, following problem deals with MS Windows Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V: Does anybody have an idea how to log processes which cause CPU utilisation more than X percent? I want to uncover an unexpected CPU load peak problem which occurs once a day in a regular fashion. Since it's a terminal server, all network connections time out and bandwidth tends to zero.

    Read the article

  • VMware guest eats 100% cpu

    - by chris
    I have a Windows 7 x64 guest that acts very strange - the VM is very slow and taskmgr will consume 50% (with 2 cores) or up to 99% (single) of the CPU when everything else is idle. Host is Windows 7 x64 with VMware Workstation 7.0.1 VMware tools are installed the same VM, when running on another PC with VMware Server 2.0 will work OK (CPU at ~0% when idle) I've tried (with no effects) enabled/disabled 3d selected 1 or 2 cores adjusted memory (1gb/500mb) adjusted the bios mem.hotadd = "FALSE" disabled page trimming Windows 7 x86 guests on the same machine do not have this problem.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Linux Delivers Top CPU Benchmark Results on Sun Blades

    - by sergio.leunissen
    From the Performance and Best Practices blog: Fresh SPEC CPU2006 results for Sun Blade X6275 M2 Server Modules running Oracle Linux 5.5. The highlights: The dual-node Sun Blade X6275 M2 server module, equipped with two Intel Xeon X5670 2.93 GHz processors per node and running the Oracle Enterprise Linux 5.5 operating system delivered the best SPECint_rate2006 and SPECfp_rate2006 benchmark results for all systems with Intel Xeon processor 5000 sequence. With a SPECint_rate2006 benchmark result of 679, the Sun Blade X6275 M2 server module, with two compute nodes per blade, delivers maximum performance for space constrained environments. Comparing Oracle's dual-node blade to HP's dual-node blade server, based on their single node performance, the Sun Blade X6275 M2 server module SPECfp_rate2006 score of 241 outperforms the best published HP ProLiant BL2X220c G5 server score by 3.2x. A single node of a Sun Blade X6275 M2 server module using 2.93 GHz Intel Xeon X5670 processors delivered 37% improvement in SPECint_rate2006 benchmark results and 22% improvement in SPECfp_rate2006 benchmark results compared to the previous generation Sun Blade X6275 server module. Both nodes of a Sun Blade X6275 M2 server module using 2.93 GHz Intel Xeon X5670 processors delivered 59% improvement on the SPECint_rate2006 benchmark and 40% improvement on the SPECfp_rate2006 benchmark compared to the previous generation Sun Blade X6275 server module.

    Read the article

  • SPARC T4-4 Beats 8-CPU IBM POWER7 on TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark

    - by Brian
    Oracle's SPARC T4-4 server delivered a world record TPC-H @3000GB benchmark result for systems with four processors. This result beats eight processor results from IBM (POWER7) and HP (x86). The SPARC T4-4 server also delivered better performance per core than these eight processor systems from IBM and HP. Comparisons below are based upon system to system comparisons, highlighting Oracle's complete software and hardware solution. This database world record result used Oracle's Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays (rotating disk) connected to a SPARC T4-4 server running Oracle Solaris 11 and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 demonstrating the power of Oracle's integrated hardware and software solution. The SPARC T4-4 server based configuration achieved a TPC-H scale factor 3000 world record for four processor systems of 205,792 QphH@3000GB with price/performance of $4.10/QphH@3000GB. The SPARC T4-4 server with four SPARC T4 processors (total of 32 cores) is 7% faster than the IBM Power 780 server with eight POWER7 processors (total of 32 cores) on the TPC-H @3000GB benchmark. The SPARC T4-4 server is 36% better in price performance compared to the IBM Power 780 server on the TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark. The SPARC T4-4 server is 29% faster than the IBM Power 780 for data loading. The SPARC T4-4 server is up to 3.4 times faster than the IBM Power 780 server for the Refresh Function. The SPARC T4-4 server with four SPARC T4 processors is 27% faster than the HP ProLiant DL980 G7 server with eight x86 processors on the TPC-H @3000GB benchmark. The SPARC T4-4 server is 52% faster than the HP ProLiant DL980 G7 server for data loading. The SPARC T4-4 server is up to 3.2 times faster than the HP ProLiant DL980 G7 for the Refresh Function. The SPARC T4-4 server achieved a peak IO rate from the Oracle database of 17 GB/sec. This rate was independent of the storage used, as demonstrated by the TPC-H @3000TB benchmark which used twelve Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays (rotating disk) and the TPC-H @1000TB benchmark which used four Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array devices (flash storage). [*] The SPARC T4-4 server showed linear scaling from TPC-H @1000GB to TPC-H @3000GB. This demonstrates that the SPARC T4-4 server can handle the increasingly larger databases required of DSS systems. [*] The SPARC T4-4 server benchmark results demonstrate a complete solution of building Decision Support Systems including data loading, business questions and refreshing data. Each phase usually has a time constraint and the SPARC T4-4 server shows superior performance during each phase. [*] The TPC believes that comparisons of results published with different scale factors are misleading and discourages such comparisons. Performance Landscape The table lists the leading TPC-H @3000GB results for non-clustered systems. TPC-H @3000GB, Non-Clustered Systems System Processor P/C/T – Memory Composite(QphH) $/perf($/QphH) Power(QppH) Throughput(QthH) Database Available SPARC Enterprise M9000 3.0 GHz SPARC64 VII+ 64/256/256 – 1024 GB 386,478.3 $18.19 316,835.8 471,428.6 Oracle 11g R2 09/22/11 SPARC T4-4 3.0 GHz SPARC T4 4/32/256 – 1024 GB 205,792.0 $4.10 190,325.1 222,515.9 Oracle 11g R2 05/31/12 SPARC Enterprise M9000 2.88 GHz SPARC64 VII 32/128/256 – 512 GB 198,907.5 $15.27 182,350.7 216,967.7 Oracle 11g R2 12/09/10 IBM Power 780 4.1 GHz POWER7 8/32/128 – 1024 GB 192,001.1 $6.37 210,368.4 175,237.4 Sybase 15.4 11/30/11 HP ProLiant DL980 G7 2.27 GHz Intel Xeon X7560 8/64/128 – 512 GB 162,601.7 $2.68 185,297.7 142,685.6 SQL Server 2008 10/13/10 P/C/T = Processors, Cores, Threads QphH = the Composite Metric (bigger is better) $/QphH = the Price/Performance metric in USD (smaller is better) QppH = the Power Numerical Quantity QthH = the Throughput Numerical Quantity The following table lists data load times and refresh function times during the power run. TPC-H @3000GB, Non-Clustered Systems Database Load & Database Refresh System Processor Data Loading(h:m:s) T4Advan RF1(sec) T4Advan RF2(sec) T4Advan SPARC T4-4 3.0 GHz SPARC T4 04:08:29 1.0x 67.1 1.0x 39.5 1.0x IBM Power 780 4.1 GHz POWER7 05:51:50 1.5x 147.3 2.2x 133.2 3.4x HP ProLiant DL980 G7 2.27 GHz Intel Xeon X7560 08:35:17 2.1x 173.0 2.6x 126.3 3.2x Data Loading = database load time RF1 = power test first refresh transaction RF2 = power test second refresh transaction T4 Advan = the ratio of time to T4 time Complete benchmark results found at the TPC benchmark website http://www.tpc.org. Configuration Summary and Results Hardware Configuration: SPARC T4-4 server 4 x SPARC T4 3.0 GHz processors (total of 32 cores, 128 threads) 1024 GB memory 8 x internal SAS (8 x 300 GB) disk drives External Storage: 12 x Sun Storage 2540-M2 array storage, each with 12 x 15K RPM 300 GB drives, 2 controllers, 2 GB cache Software Configuration: Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition Audited Results: Database Size: 3000 GB (Scale Factor 3000) TPC-H Composite: 205,792.0 QphH@3000GB Price/performance: $4.10/QphH@3000GB Available: 05/31/2012 Total 3 year Cost: $843,656 TPC-H Power: 190,325.1 TPC-H Throughput: 222,515.9 Database Load Time: 4:08:29 Benchmark Description The TPC-H benchmark is a performance benchmark established by the Transaction Processing Council (TPC) to demonstrate Data Warehousing/Decision Support Systems (DSS). TPC-H measurements are produced for customers to evaluate the performance of various DSS systems. These queries and updates are executed against a standard database under controlled conditions. Performance projections and comparisons between different TPC-H Database sizes (100GB, 300GB, 1000GB, 3000GB, 10000GB, 30000GB and 100000GB) are not allowed by the TPC. TPC-H is a data warehousing-oriented, non-industry-specific benchmark that consists of a large number of complex queries typical of decision support applications. It also includes some insert and delete activity that is intended to simulate loading and purging data from a warehouse. TPC-H measures the combined performance of a particular database manager on a specific computer system. The main performance metric reported by TPC-H is called the TPC-H Composite Query-per-Hour Performance Metric (QphH@SF, where SF is the number of GB of raw data, referred to as the scale factor). QphH@SF is intended to summarize the ability of the system to process queries in both single and multiple user modes. The benchmark requires reporting of price/performance, which is the ratio of the total HW/SW cost plus 3 years maintenance to the QphH. A secondary metric is the storage efficiency, which is the ratio of total configured disk space in GB to the scale factor. Key Points and Best Practices Twelve Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays were used for the benchmark. Each Sun Storage 2540-M2 array contains 12 15K RPM drives and is connected to a single dual port 8Gb FC HBA using 2 ports. Each Sun Storage 2540-M2 array showed 1.5 GB/sec for sequential read operations and showed linear scaling, achieving 18 GB/sec with twelve Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays. These were stand alone IO tests. The peak IO rate measured from the Oracle database was 17 GB/sec. Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 required very little system tuning. Some vendors try to make the point that storage ratios are of customer concern. However, storage ratio size has more to do with disk layout and the increasing capacities of disks – so this is not an important metric in which to compare systems. The SPARC T4-4 server and Oracle Solaris efficiently managed the system load of over one thousand Oracle Database parallel processes. Six Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays were mirrored to another six Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays on which all of the Oracle database files were placed. IO performance was high and balanced across all the arrays. The TPC-H Refresh Function (RF) simulates periodical refresh portion of Data Warehouse by adding new sales and deleting old sales data. Parallel DML (parallel insert and delete in this case) and database log performance are a key for this function and the SPARC T4-4 server outperformed both the IBM POWER7 server and HP ProLiant DL980 G7 server. (See the RF columns above.) See Also Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC) Home Page Ideas International Benchmark Page SPARC T4-4 Server oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com OTN Sun Storage 2540-M2 Array oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement TPC-H, QphH, $/QphH are trademarks of Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC). For more information, see www.tpc.org. SPARC T4-4 205,792.0 QphH@3000GB, $4.10/QphH@3000GB, available 5/31/12, 4 processors, 32 cores, 256 threads; IBM Power 780 QphH@3000GB, 192,001.1 QphH@3000GB, $6.37/QphH@3000GB, available 11/30/11, 8 processors, 32 cores, 128 threads; HP ProLiant DL980 G7 162,601.7 QphH@3000GB, $2.68/QphH@3000GB available 10/13/10, 8 processors, 64 cores, 128 threads.

    Read the article

  • Intel CPU: Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon Dual Core. Which is faster?

    - by Clay Nichols
    Xeon: Dual Core Intel® Xeon® W3503 2.40GHz, 4M L3, 4.8GT/s Intel® Core™2 Duo E8400 (6MB,3.0 GHz, 1333FSB), USES: Virtual PC (and doing software development within Virtual PC) A little bit of video editing Desktop software (like Outlook, Quickbooks, etc.) I think #1 is faster, but wanted feedback from other folks here. Which is faster and why? Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >