Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Feb 2006 14:07 UTC, submitted by Robert Milkowski
According to a benchmark, Sun's Niagara processor is over 4 times faster at serving dynamic PHP pages than a dual Xeon server. "We did real production benchmarks using different servers. Servers were put into production behind load-balancers, then weights on load-balancers were changed so we got highest number of dynamic PHP requests per second. It must sustain that number of requests for some time and no drops or request queue were allowed. With static requests numbers for Opteron and T2000 were even better but we are mostly interested in dynamic pages."
Thread beginning with comment 97547
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
This compairson is more revelent then you are giving it credit for. The reason I say that is because IBM was out at our company last week trying to sell us x335 as a solution for our WWW hosting. This is the server/model that they they seem to push in these environments. The T1000 is the model that sun pushes for these environments.
That does not mean that I totally disagree with you from a pure technical perspective there are ways to make a more technically correct compairson. But this is a good real world compairson based on what vendors are pushing for this soluction, and how they stack up against eachother.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-04
"That's why we got 2.5x performance of 2x Xeon 2.8GHz (signle core)."
So, a Sun x2100, 2 cores @175 2,2GHz, 1,3x faster than a 2x Xeon 2,8GHz?
Yes, well, no: that advantage is realistic only in a test heavily biased to multiple threads execution.
"This benchmark was all about WWW - nothing more."
OK.
But that means: this benchmark is mainly (if not only) about capability in dealing multiple threads; as I prepended, no wonder that more cores = best results.
(in the case of Opteron vs Xeon, this advantage for Opteron on certain kinds of task is well known and well documented)
And no wonder that a newer design specifically meant for low power ultradense systems is more adapt for that use than CPUs like Opteron or Xeon not meant for low power ultradense systems, it's obvious. If you want to buid a TDP whise x86 system today you should go on EE Opteron family or on mobile Intel processors (or wait for Conroe).
In other words, I belive facts in the benchmark are true and correctly reported, however I wonder if it makes sense (and if it may be not misleading for an unskilled reader):
- make a comparison based merely on multithreading capabilities from 8 core with to 2-4 cores system... on the other hand would it not be misleading running a signle threaded encoding task on a budget PC with single 3,8GHz P4 saying "see, it beats 4 Opteron cores an the new 8 cores SUN CPU (in application xyz)!"?
- make a comparison of something build ground up to be a low power cpu for dense systems with something that IS NOT MEANT to be low power... no wonder it will win!
- make a comparison between a product that impose (afaik) a vendor lock in and something that doesn't.