Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Intel TPC benchmarks show Linux as leader 21

Posted by timothy from the what-about-going-to-eleven dept.
prostoalex writes "Intel announced Linux to be the winner of Intel's own TPC-C benchmark test. A 32-processor Itanium machine performed 600,000 transactions per minute under Linux, leading the way before Windows as Unix. IBM's Unix server used to be the leader."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel TPC benchmarks show Linux as leader More

Intel TPC benchmarks show Linux as leader

Comments Filter:
  • The link is broken. Does anyone have a correct one?

  • Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

    by norwoodites ( 226775 )
    It is a 64 Ia64 I2 running Windows that does about 606K transactions per minute which is a winner, a 32 IBM Power4 running AIX and DB2 (most likely with large pages, 128MB page size) gets about 600K so does the 32 IA62 running Linux. So it looks like windows suck in terms of transactions per minute.
  • i think the writer of this confused the order of links...the part that says linux was the quickest on intels test, should point to the test, not intels main page...and why is that link (for the test announcement) put where it says unix used to be better.......someone should write an article on how to properly link articles. in short, don't make it confusing. [end rant]
  • ...leading the way before Windows as Unix. IBM's Unix server used to be the leader.

    The link is broken, the typo is obvious, that can only be implying one thing...



    Timothy, you need another cup of coffee. Quick.

  • Submitters need to read the article (Score:5, Informative)

    by cookd ( 72933 ) <douglascook@NOSpaM.juno.com> on Sunday June 08, 2003 @01:05PM (#6144209) Journal
    The current record for TPC-C for non-clustered systems is a Windows Server 2003 (64 bit edition) on a 64 processor IA64 system from HP running SQL Server 2000 64 bit edition. It runs 707k TPM in official benchmarks.

    The Intel system mentioned was a 32 processor IA64 system running Oracle. It got a score of "near 600k" in Intel's internal benchmarks.

    Intel is keeping quiet about the details, and hasn't yet submitted a system for "official" testing. But it sounds like their kernel tweaks and their optimizing compiler have made a huge difference, and Oracle on Linux is a serious contender.
    • So the record is 707k TPM on 64 CPUs, but Linux scores ~600k TPM on 32 CPUs, right? This is impressive, but I wonder why Intel didn't use a 64 CPU system for its tests. Maybe Linux scales poorly beyond 32 CPUs?
      • Maybe Linux scales poorly beyond 32 CPUs?

        That certainly would be interesting since the scaling from 4 -> 32 CPUs was pretty much linear. The scaling past 32 CPUs would have to be really abysmal for the Linux machine to fail to exceed 707k TPM on a 64 CPU machine.

        It is also very interesting to see that Intel got a lot of improvement from their own compiler rather than GCC.

    • You're right. The problem is in the wording of the headline:
      A 32-processor Itanium machine performed 600,000 transactions per minute under Linux, leading the way before Windows as Unix.

      I think he meant " leading the way next to Windows and Unix [tpc.org]. It's rather confusing and should have been fixed before getting out of registered zone.

      Also, in your post:
      and Oracle on Linux is a serious contender.

      Hmm...I might have to disgree with you on this. Linux(RedHat AS, or ES) works really closely with Oracle i
      • The parent post makes some good points, but other posts are seem to mis important differences. The windows system has a heavy client using COM+. The ibm system used BEA Tuxedo, which is server based queue. Using COM+ does not provide queue failover or replication. Using BEA Tuxedo on the other hand does provide clustering and fail over. Finding the right solution is what matters right, so using one technique over the over should be driven by the requirements. If your system has to handle that kind of load a

  • Wrong... (Score:4, Informative)

    by burnsy ( 563104 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @02:35PM (#6144758)
    IBM's Unix server used to be the leader.

    Sorry, old news. MS/SQL Server used [sqlmag.com] to be the leader (and still [tpc.org] is). They lost the crown for about 3 weeks to IBM.

  • they used their own compiler in stead of gcc (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyborch ( 524661 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @02:53PM (#6144852) Homepage Journal
    does this mean that intel's compiler will now be able to compile the linux kernel? and have they submitted their optimizations back to the kernel developer team (the article said that 20-30 percent performance improvement came from changes to linux itself)?
  • These results are all well and good (especially if they used an in-house compiler to bump the performance up) but what happens when this architecture scales?

    IT Pros are not going to fall for the 'fastest' in the transaction processing department. Managers? That's another story.

    IMO, If this server can't scale well Intel might as well market the results of this test as a 32 processor paper weight.

    Dolemite
    ____________________

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close