Home > Intel Communities > Open Port IT Community > The Server Room > Blog > Authors > JamesV_Intel

The Server Room Blog

2 Posts authored by: JamesV_Intel
0

We talk a lot about how great the Intel Xeon processor compares vs. competing RISC architectures when it come to price and price/performance on various workloads, but unfortunately for many existing people running on RISC hardware, simply throwing out the old and standardizing on the shiny new Intel-based servers isn't always that simple of a proposition.  Why? Your existing software running on UNIX (i.e. AIX, Solaris) may be custom-coded on your flavor of UNIX, the source code may be lost, the guy who wrote retired 5 years ago, etc.  So, how do you account for this when 'running the numbers' to see if it makes sense to rid yourself of the power and money-sucking old RISC server collecting dust in the back of the data center?  These five steps may help:

 

1.  Understand the business benefits of moving from your existing RISC hardware to IA (and compare vs buying new RISC hardware)

This is the simple analysis that looks at performance of your existing system, compares it to new hardware and then factor in other significant cost items like power consumption, software licensing, software/hardware maintenance costs, etc.  Of course, this almost always shows that new Intel hardware will save you significant dollars over the long-term and you can figure out how quickly you pay-back your cost of the server in years or possibly months based on this simple calculation.  And, many server hardware vendors (and Intel field reps) have these tools available, you just need to ask.

2.  ***** your current RISC-based infrastructure

Meaning, look at all the software that actually runs on these servers, the packaged applications and the custom code.  Do you use particular storage adapters and drivers for your SAN, etc?  Make a list.  Now, look to see which items are easy, and which ones will be hard to migrate.  If it's a packaged database that available on Windows, Linux, and Solaris for IA already, then it may be fairly to migrate the data over in a short period of time by yourself and move on.  However, for those custom codes and potential software packages that will need to be changed in order to move to current hardware, start looking at the real costs to migrate these pieces.  Often, this step will require some help from a services company or a hardware vendor that can provide these services in addition to selling you the new hardware.  Now that you have these estimates, factor it back into step #1.  Sure, the ROI will not look as good, but often will be surprising still very good even after factoring in these migration costs.

3.  Develop a migration plan

You may chose to do this on your own if it doesn't look too intimidating, but for more complicated migrations, likely you will need some external help.  If you've factored in these services costs already during the previous step then the cost of doing this step is already justified.  Many services companies will give you the estimate very inexpensively.

4. Test

You may only be able to test the 'easy stuff' initially, but verify the performance deltas between the new and old systems calculated in step 1 to correctly size how much hardware you will need in actual deployment.  This is where the actual performance of the system will measure up vs. the performance estimates used in your ROI analysis in step 1.  Sometimes this can be better than calculated or worse, your mileage is guaranteed to vary.

5. Deploy

If you have your migration plan in place from step 3, now you execute according your plan, ensuring your migrate data in the right order to ensure minimal downtime.

 

These steps can be very intimidating, many people in IT find it hard to justify the migration costs (particularly if you need to pay for some services), but taking a systematic approach to it and carefully calculating your ROI including these extra costs will often make it worth the effort.

0 Comments Permalink
0

Ah, the good old days.... It was normal to have a discussion with a friend or coworker member about something like, "We just bought a 1.2 GHz Pentium III server, it runs circles around that 500 MHz system we bought a few years back."  Everyone nods in approval, all rightly assuming that of course bigger is better and frequency directly relates to performance.  Of course now things are more complex with multi-core, multi-threads, differing architectures (Power, SPARC, Xeon, Opteron).  Is a dual-core at Power6 4.7 GHz faster than a Xeon at 3 GHz? Is a 1.4 GHz processor with 8 threads/core better than a 2.8 GHz quad-core with 2 threads per core?  Tough to know off the top of your head these days.  One thing is clear, the Intel Xeon processor 5500 series is in the lead of performance per processor (regardless of the frequency of processors available today). 

In comparing the Intel Xeon processor 5500 series (Nehalem) architecture vs. what's available from IBM, Sun, and AMD today, you see a wide variety of cpu offerings with dramatically differing specs.  However, when you take a look at all these systems with a common number of cores, you can see the differences in per core performance on the industry standard benchmark SPECint_rate_base2006

Processor

# of cpus

Total Cores

Total Threads

Frequency

SPECint_rate_base2006 Performance

Intel Xeon X5570

2

8

16

2.93 GHz

240

AMD Opteron 2393SE

2

8

8

3.1 GHz

122

IBM Power6

4

8

16

4.7 GHz

206

Sun UltraSPARC T2

1

8

64

1.4 GHz

73

What a contrast!  Chip designers today have multiple choices to make to eek out the most performance in today's server systems.  What we see today is that the Intel Xeon processor 5500 series balances all of these quite well.  Whereas others have much higher frequencies, it doesn't necessarily translate into more performance, while others have gone with a larger number of threads, but have low performance per thread.  Even processors that have similar specs have performance that is quite different.  Of course this is only one benchmark, however if you look at others you will find similar differences.   

What this means for most IT buyers is it's more difficult to understand how all the whiz-bang features the marketers throw at you and how they translate into value for you.  My advice, really understand what kind of workloads are improtant to you and focus on the performance from industry standard workloads that best represent those.  Remember that bigger numbers on the spec sheet aren't always better when it comes to server performance.  Check your figures!

SPECint_rate_base2006 performance data reference:

Intel® Xeon® processor X5570 based platform details

Fujitsu PRIMERGY* TX300 S5 server platform with two Intel Xeon processors X5570 2.93GHz, 8MB L3 cache, 6.4GT/s QPI, 48 GB memory (6x8 GB PC3-10600R, 2 rank, CL9-9-9, ECC), SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 SP2 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.16.60-0.21-smp, Intel C++ Compiler for Linux32 and Linux64 version 11.0 build 20010131. SPECint_rate_base2006 score 240, http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2009q1/cpu2006-20090313-06653.html

AMD Opteron 2393SE based platform details

Supermicro A+ Server 1021M-UR+B, AMD Opteron 2393 SE 3.1 GHz, 6MB L3 cache, 32 GB memory (8x4 GB DDR2-800, CL5, Reg, Dual-rank), SuSE Enterprise Server 10 (x86_64) SP1, Kernel 2.6.16.46-0.12-smp, PGI Server Complete Version 7.2, PathScale Compiler Suite Version 3.2, SPECint_rate_base2006 score 122, http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2009q2/cpu2006-20090406-06931.html

IBM Power6 based platform details

IBM system p570 (4.7 GHz, 8 core), 32MB L3 cache, 64 GB memory (32x2 GB)DDR2 667 MHz, IBM AIX5L V5.3, XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition Version 9.0 for AIX, SPECint_rate_base2006 score 206, http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q2/cpu2006-20070518-01103.html

Sun UltraSPARC T2 plus based platform details

Sun SPARC Enterprise T5120, Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.417 GHz, 4MB L2 cache, 64 GB memory (16x4 GB), Solaris 10 8/07 (build s10s_u4wos_12b), Sun Studio 12 (patch build 2007/08/30), SPECint_rate_base2006 score 73.0, http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q4/cpu2006-20071009-02247.html

0 Comments Permalink

Filter Blog

By author: By date: By tag: