Home > Intel Communities > Open Port IT Community > The Server Room > Blog > Tags > risc

The Server Room Blog

11 Posts tagged with the risc tag
2

See this video from IDF 2009, San Francisco. 

Sean Maloney demonstrates new features coming with the next generation Intel Xeon processor for 4S+ server configurations, Nehalem-EX.  Sean focuses on the unique scalability and RAS capabilities newly introduced into the platform. 

Paul Ottelini on Monday said it is the democratization of data.  With the capabilities, Intel Xeon processor based servers are ever more relevant to any type of workload a data center would support.  The economics of standards based Intel architecture platforms will in effect provides another choice for data center operators to run the most demanding and mission critical workloads where expensive and legacy proprietary architectures like RISC are no longer the sole choice.  This choice proposition is very powerful as the cost reduction is the foremost concern that needs to be tackled by data center operators and IT managers. 

Nehalem architecture brought the performance and efficiency.  Nehalem-EX will bring, on top of that, the RAS capabilities and increased variation of OEM system designs.  In addition, ISVs will be ready to have hardware features reflected into the software products.  It is a game changer, turn of the industry, where Intel is providing data centers with opportunities to standardize ALL the workload, including the most mission critical, to Intel Xeon processor based infrastructure. 

2 Comments Permalink
0

I wrote a while back about how the Xeon 7400(Dunnington) processor series compared to RISC. Since then I have shared information through other blog posts and sharing content about how Xeon 7400 and Xeon 5500 will compare to both SPARC and POWER.

 

Xeon 7400 and Xeon 5500 are the current products shipping into the marketplace today. I.M.H.O they offer a pretty compelling alternative from both a performance and TCO perspective Vs SPARC and POWER. But I will not try and repeat all the reasons here

 

What I wanted to share with you was some thoughts about what the next product to succeed Xeon 7400 will bring to the RISC party. Nehalem-EX is the code-name for our next generation of product designed to serve workloads currently serviced by Xeon 7400 today (i.e. Database, ERP,  BI etc). EX btw is what we all would traditionally call MP or multi processor servers

 

Don't stop reading now, here is why I'm EXCITED about what Nehalem-EX will bring to the RISC party.

My excitement is actually based on real customer discussions about what Nehalem-EX will do for them and why it delivers some new stuff (my code for features and benefits) which they see as a pre-requisite to make the move from RISC to Xeon. For some customers the TCO and performance of  products have been enough to convince them to move. For some other customers there are still some checkboxes remaining which I believe Nehalem-EX will address

Here is a snapshot of some of the cool new stuff which is actually convincing customers (from some real deals that I have worked)

    1. Improved bandwidth. Up to 9 times memory bandwidth of previous generations
    2. Introduction of Quickpath Interconnects to the EX systems
    3. Add new RAS features previously seen on Itanium products to Xeon products
    4. Significant improvement in performance vs previous generations e.g. Database 2.5xe
    5. More scalable platforms through 8 OEMs offering >8S. These platforms are key to manage large databases and for large scale consolidation
    6. Mainframe class availability in scalable platforms

 

For more information check out the press briefing from May. See more the details in the presentation

 

 

 

Nehalem-EX goes into production later this year and I am pretty excited about how it will change the game. What do you think?

0 Comments Permalink
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
7

Sunsets can last a while, but in the end the sun will go down.  I talk to a lot of companies and listen to a lot of data center managers.  Customers trust their AIX-Power and Solaris-Sparc platforms.  These are solid platforms and deliver good features and reliability, but, if these managers could get the sense of security, performance, and reliability with Linux / Intel Xeon platforms, they would move tomorrow.  It is simple economics.

 

The reality is that customers are making this move, and being successful.  The hardware reliability on Intel platforms today is amazing.  Intel recently announced that their next generation of Xeon(Nehalem) EX based servers will support Machine Check Architecture.  This brings high end Xeon X86 servers into the RAS family previously reserved to proprietary RISC & mainframe platforms.  Intel Xeon already eclipses the performance of proprietary RISC processors both on a per processor basis and a per dollar basis.  It is reasonable to say Xeon can deliver better performance, better value, and equal or better reliability.  The only hurdle left is the software.

 

Linux has come a long ways.  It is no longer a university OS, run by geeky dudes in black T-shirts emblazoned with the quadratic formula.  It is mainstream and solidly supported.  Linux is the primary development and delivery platform for Oracle.  Other OS environments are ports, delaying support and innovation.  Linux is used by major financial companies.  Linux is available in solid and well supported distributions with a 20 year history of enterprise business.  Linux experts are broad community, worldwide, and growing in number.  Linux is economical vs proprietary RISC.

 

In an era of big budgets and conservative (don’t make any changes) philosophies, businesses will always stick to their proprietary RISC systems.  That era is over.  Sticking to your RISC systems may seem like the safe move, but failing to examine the opportunities for better performance and lower cost with Linux on Intel Xeon platforms is business negligence.  Business negligence is seldom rewarded. 

Performance, Price, Infrastructure, Ecosystem, TCO, RAS – when the decision factors are examined it becomes clear -  we are in the RISC twilight and the sun will set on Sparc-Solaris and Power-AIX.

7 Comments Permalink
0

As companies face the economic downturn, they are being asked to trim their IT budgets -- essentially, do more with less. Meanwhile, IT folks are also being asked to make sure their companies remain competitive with the best server performance running best of breed IT solutions that operate in extremely efficient data centers as well as ensuring every IT dollar spent is showing an RIO within 12 months or less. That raises the question: “Can migrating applications from a RISC architecture to an Intel architecture save a company money and allow them to remain competitive?” In many cases the answer is “YES!”

 

I have been an Intel Enterprise Technical Specialist supporting many of the large financial customers in the NYC area. My customers have a mix of all sorts of platforms, from commodity X86 servers to large RISC servers and from Midrange to Mainframe systems. Customers perform tests to measure Performance, Performance per Watt and Performance per Dollar. The outcomes will determine the architecture that is best suited for their applications. Customers have also relied on industry benchmarks such as CPU2006, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECpower_ssj2008, and SPECjbb2005 whose results can be found at www.spec.org.

 

I have seen many custom and commercial applications that used to run on other architectures which have been ported and are now running on commodity Intel architectures. Why? The Intel Xeon 5500 Series microprocessor (codename Nehalem) is delivering increased performance, power efficiency, and overall lower cost needed to meet the IT requirements for their need. For example, in the financial sector several applications exist, such as Market Data Feed Handlers, High-Frequency Automated Trading, Risk Analytics, Monte Carlo (compute farms) which require high performance servers to gain a competitive advantage and increase revenues for the firm.

 

As an example, one of my customers migrated several of their company’s in-house developed applications that were running on legacy RISC servers. Migrating applications to Intel servers was a straight forward process since many of them were written in Java and were fairly easy to port. Other applications that were written in C/C++ could be migrated using Intel software tools, (i.e. Intel C/C++ compiler, Thread Checker, Thread Profile and Vtune) to make the job were extremely helpful in migrating their applications to the Intel architecture. For example, using Intel servers for their Risk Analytic application provided increased compute performance over their legacy RISC servers which helped complete their Risk Analytic runs much faster with fewer servers leading to an overall lower TCO.

 

Using Intel Xeon 7400 & 5500 Series has not only provided increased overall performance but has decreased the number of servers through server consolidation in the data center which also requires less energy.  This has helped prevent the data center from reaching the capacity of power and cooling. For some of my customers, using Intel Xeon 7400 & 5500 servers has extended the lifespan of their data center, saving millions of dollars not having to build new data centers due to its increased power efficiency while reducing overall operational costs.

 

0 Comments Permalink
0

Last week I wrote about the server product update for the upcoming Nehalem-EX processor and the expandable platforms based on it.  Today I wanted to provide you with a short 10 minute video captured from the event.  It’s a really good summary for those of you that want to learn more about Intel’s Xeon product roadmap but with limited time.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, look for some informative blogs over the next 1-2 weeks that will offer more of an in depth view of Nehalem-EX’s 4 Socket capabilities, performance, scalability, RAS, and Virtualization. 

bryce

0 Comments Permalink
1

I was thinking about a catchy title when I suddenly recalled the ‘Look Who’s Talking’ movie series from a while back. After all catchy titles are key for blogs!.

Previously I shared some thoughts on overall TCO savings that could be achieved, performance benefits that can be realized and how to migrate from RISC to Intel architectures. We all agree that making a change for the sake of change is never a good thing and justifying a change in the current economic environment can be a challenging path. So let’s look at who is changing and the benefits they are realizing from making a change. (I do apologize for over-use of word change, this is not a political commercial)

  • BMW Group wanted to simplify management of their environment and reduce TCO of their proprietary RISC server infrastructure. BMW moved their SAP environment and achieved 2.75-3xperformance gains and greater energy efficiency and drove down cost.
  • Telefonica a major Telecom Service Provider in Europe migrated their mobile online billing system and achieved a 428%performance gain.
  • Florida Hospital moved their disaster recovery system and got higher availability, reduced recovery time and lower system maintenance costs

Changing architecture does not mean that you have to change the operating system and solution stack. In some cases IT organizations are choosing to retain their Solaris environment.

  • BT Vision wanted to triple their Data Center capacity without increasing their power consumption or consuming more space in their DataCenter. Deployed Solaris on Xeon and achieved 10xfaster performance in Solaris Applications, 25-50%increased availability and 80%savings on their underlying equipment

Hopefully these examples help in some way to show that you will not be the first trailblazer trying out something new and unproven.  IT Organizations have moved and are reaping the benefits of the change.

Finally being March 17th and Irish, I would like to wish you all a Happy St Paddy’s day!

1 Comments Permalink
0

The current economic environment is unprecedented in our lifetime and is having multiple impacts on Enterprise decision making. IT spending is under severe scrutiny with IT budget reductions forecasted throughout most Enterprises in ’09. Even with reduced budgets, IT needs to continue to improve business productivity and competitiveness. So what can you do to manage all these conflicting conditions?

Maybe this type of environment represents an opportunity to make some changes with respect to your IT Policy. Could this be a good time to simplify and standardize your IT environment by looking at a broader range of choices that are now available. These choices may not have existed in the past due to some of your decision criteria not being meet for your hardware or software needs. Hardware and software evolve at a rapid pace, and the capabilities to meet your needs are significantly different today than what was available 5-7 years ago when you made previous decisions.

Equipment nearing the end of depreciation cycles or lease contracts offer another opportunity to look at the cost and performance of your existing architectures Vs other architectures that are available today. In my previous blog I shared some thoughts on performance and pricing of RISC systems Vs x86 based platforms. There are significant savings that can be made be choosing x86 hardware without trading off on your performance needs. Selecting x86 hardware could enable you to execute your IT refresh and replacement strategy in a reduced Capex budget environment. Sometimes it seems that offsetting a purchase may be a prudent thing to do, but at some point you will have to replace these systems to meet business productivity requirements. In the meantime you will have to spend incremental budget paying extra $’s for maintenance and support for systems that you had planned to replace and you may also not meet the demands placed on you to support your business needs. I also read recently that under the proposed US Stimulus package there may be some provisions for accelerating depreciation on new equipment purchases. This could be another factor to consider in terms of which option will cost you most in the long-run.

One other thought I had was the ability to re-allocate $’s within your overall TCO to spend on other aspects of your solution needs. If you could save money on the hardware cost would it free up $’s for you to spend on the overall solution?. For example could you afford to pay the software license costs and support more users for your ERP environment.

Consolidating older generation RISC based platforms to current x86 based platforms could be another way to offset some of the associated costs associated with maintaining and supporting your RISC environment.  I read a paper recently published by Dell where they talked about the performance difference between V440 SPARC Servers and todays R900 systems. They talked about the R900m being 14 times as fast as V440. This led me to conclude that I could consolidate a distributed workload from a number of older V440s and run that workload on one system. This sounds like a pretty good deal to me as I can save some space in my datacenter, save some energy costs, probably get some savings on software license and support costs.

Another factor to consider is the whole issue of payback. In the current environment everyone is being asked to justify the payback on their investment to be 12 months or less. What if I said that you could get a 9 month payback on your investment in a new hardware platform purely on the basis of savings from power & cooling savings and lower OS maintenance costs. Would these types of savings be enough to justify your investment and consolidating multiple legacy RISC servers to a current x86 platform?. Well that type of payback is attainable, and there are other savings like software license costs, administrator and operator costs that are not really included in the calculations.

Ok, so the counterside to my argument is that it is hard to move a workload from RISC to x86. The savings I get from moving will not be offset by the money I spend to move. It is a fair argument, but there are Customers who have done the transition and saved some significant money by doing so. Avis in Europe are one example that comes to mind where they talk about reduce their TCO by 50% moving from RISC to x86 platform

One of the other comments I often hear relates to it being technically hard to move my solution if it is running on UNIX/RISC to x86 offering. I agree you are moving move one architecture to another and there are some challenges to do so, but there are resources out there to help you. Principled Technologies wrote two reports recently that discussed how you could move your Oracle database to Solaris or Linux running on Xeon. Don’t worry, these were not marketing papers, they actually did this migration in a real lab environment and documented the technical ‘how to’.

Ok, so these are some of my thoughts, let me know what you think?.

0 Comments Permalink
2

Posted by Eoin McConnell Oct 2nd, 2008

Back in May I shared some thoughts about how I would choose between different Servers based on RISC architecture and Intel based architecture. My decision making was based on three basic tenets in terms of choosing the right CPU architecture

1) Choice and the ability to pick between multiple suppliers.

2) Performance

3) System Cost and Total cost of Ownership

 

As you probably know by now, we launched the Xeon Processor 7400 Series (codename; Dunnington) on September 15th. The performance results delivered by systems based on the Xeon 7400 processor are astounding when you actually compare with performance delivered by systems based on RISC architecture. Who would have thought that you could get this level of performance from Xeon at a fraction of the cost of comparable RISC based architectures.

The Xeon 7400 is designed for high-end enterprise workloads like your typical database so I decided to look at the latest database results. If you get a chance, then check these out for yourself at tpc.org. Amazing performance, a fraction of the cost and you can choose from multiple Vendors and Operation System combinations.

- HP Proliant DL 580 4s system delivered 634,825 tpmC at $1.10/tpmc. This compares with an equivalent POWER 6 based system at 629,159 tpmC at $2.49/tpmC

 

I also decided to look at how many users a Xeon 7400 based system could support in an SAP environment. For this comparison I took a slightly different approach to look at a 4s Xeon 7400 based system as compared to a 2S UltraSPARCT2 system. You may ask why I made this strange comparison, well to me a 2S UltraSPARCT2 system is a 4S system in disguise in terms of system capability, memory supported and most of all the price!

- HP Proliant DL 580 4s system supported 5,155 users. This compares with an equivalent UltraSPARcT2 based system at 4,170.

Oh and a similar system with 64GB memory is about $32,000 for HP DL580 and a T5240 is about $56,000

 

Ok, I’ll stop doing direct comparisons now as I can understand how this could read as Intel marketing. I’m really excited by these results and wanted to share with you, please check these performance results out here at intel.com.

 

Here are also some links to articles that I found written about Intel Xeon 7400 offering ‘RISC-Class performance at a fraction of the cost’. Wall Street Journal, Internet News, The Register

 

In the next few weeks I will share some further thoughts on comparing Xeon with RISC, but in the meantime, what do you think?

 

Related Blog Links:

 

It's official - Intel Xeon Processor 7400 Series (Dunnington) has launched

Six More Benefits of 45nm

HP Announces World Record 4-Socket TPC-C Result

IBM Announces World Record 8-Socket TPC-C Result

 

Previous Blog links:

So what does RISC really mean to you?

2 Comments Permalink
0

I recently spoke with a large financial customer that has several hundred sparc boxes ( mostly inherited from an acquisiton). These systems are a challenge in that they are aging - some running out of available maintenance, slow, old, and the expertise in the company just doesn't extend to this architecture.

 

They were also very proud of there virtualized Xeon architecture where they could move vm's quickly to maximize efficiency and optimize resources. I think it is time to bring these two together.

 

So given 500 solaris servers:

about half of these are running enterprise applications - like Oracle(tm) - that run just great under windows or linux. Move these today.

Of the other half, most of these are - performance wise - tiny servers. You could put dozens of them - maybe all of them - in VMs on just a few large xeon servers. ( Don't forget about the phenominal virtualization perofrmance on the Xeon 7400 that Intel announced last week at IDF )

 

So how do I move these custom solaris sparc based physical servers into my super efficient Xeon based virtual machines?

Three ways:

1) recompile the apps for solaris 10 - which runs great in a vm on your virtualized pool

2) Use transitive quicktransit and move the binaries to Solaris 10 or Linux vms in the pool

3) Move to the windows or linux version of the software, or replace it with software that does the same business function.

 

Presto - 500 physical legacy servers - collapsed into a more efficient, more manageable, more modern pool of resources. What will you do with all the free space?

0 Comments Permalink
2

Have you ever asked yourself that question when you are bombarded with marketing messages from multiple different companies on why choose their products vs. a competitors product?. As a non-Engineer in an engineer centric company, I certainly have thought about this several times and asked myself a very simple question - Why should I choose one architecture type over another offering?

 

I suppose the best place is to start at the beginning and try and decipher the acronym soup of RISC, x86 etc. I decided to use my ‘old friend’ Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/ to help with this process. What I found was another alphabet soup that I could have researched for hours, but try and simplify it below. I attach my detailed definition findings at end of this blog.

 

Simply put, RISC (pronounced risk) is a CPU design to use simplified instructions to execute very fast thus providing higher performance. x86 is a generic term that refers to the instruction set of another CPU architecture. So basically both RISC and x86 are types of instruction sets linked to CPU architecture.

 

So which one should I choose?.

Call me old fashioned, but as a business guy, it always comes down to 3 basic tenets in terms of making a decision

1) I like choice and the ability to pick and choose between multiple suppliers to get the best deal to meet my needs.(and the ability to change supplier without major obstacles)

2) Performance is really important. The higher performance means that I get my work done quicker which reduces the overall cost / improves time to revenue and ultimately improves the productivity of my business

3) System cost and total cost of ownership are key decision points in today’s era which is vastly different from the ‘dot.com’ boom. It is all about managing the bottom line through good decisions around CAPEX and OPEX spending

 

I applied my decision criteria and quickly found out that there is not a lot of choice from a hardware and operating system perspective with RISC architecture. In fact it looks quite the opposite of choice which always concerns me, call me pro-choice if you like, but I like the ability to move around suppliers!. On the other hand I found x86 to have lots of choice with many hardware vendors to list and a range of operating systems from windows to Linux and Solaris.

 

Having choice out of the way, I then moved onto performance for my business and looked at published results from many hardware vendors on different websites like http://www.spec.org. what I found was that Intel based systems had a lot of leading results against architectures like SPARC from SUN or Fujitsu and POWER from IBM.

 

I then looked at price (and being an ex-Accountant in my past career) nearly jumped for joy when I saw that system prices were low for x86 systems compared to the comparable RISC systems.

 

This analysis helped me understand it better and helped simplify my decision making.

 

Here is a short video with a little bit more detail. I would be interested in your thoughts and have you had any similar experiences that you would like to share.

 

 

2 Comments Permalink

Filter Blog

By author: By date: By tag: