Why POWER8 is the platform of choice for Linux

Why POWER8 is the platform of choice
for Linux
Gary Andrews
[email protected]
03/26/2015
IBM Competitive Project Office
Proving the Value of IBM Technology
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Power Architecture is Purpose Built
POWER8 design point is for big workloads:
Analytics
Java
Big Data
POWER8
OLTP
ERP
Cloud
Social
Mobile
Intel design point is for multiple markets:
Smart Phones, Ultra Books, Desktop, Servers
3
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 – Significant Improved Technology
Leadership that is Ready for Bigger Workloads
A purposeful balanced design that delivers
new record performance
More Cores
More Threads
12 processor cores per socket (50% more
than before) that deliver 2X better per core
performance
SMT8 – 8 dynamic threads per core,
supporting SMT1, 2, 4, & 8 modes
dynamically across VMs
What this means
Better scale up performance, and more
throughput per scale out server node
What this means
You choose – Deploy VM’s in the optimal
SMT mode based on application needs
More Cache
More Bandwidth
3X the on-chip cache as POWER7 – plus
128MB of new off-chip cache as well
3.5X more memory and 2.8X more I/O
bandwidth than POWER7
What this means
Memory-intensive applications will perform
better as memory latency is reduced
What this means
Data-hungry applications (like Big Data &
Analytics) will respond twice as fast and
scale more efficiently.
4
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Architecture Matters When You Design A Micro
Processor For Emerging Big Workloads
It’s not about the number of transistors,
it is what you do with them to handle Big Workloads
POWER8 vs. Ivy Bridge EX
POWER7 to POWER8
1.2 Billion
Transistors
45nm to
22nm
567 mm
4.2 Billion
Transistors
650 mm 2
Westmere EX to Ivy Bridge EX
2.6 Billion
Transistors
513 mm
5
32nm to
22nm
4.3 Billion
Transistors
541 mm
2
- 96 threads/socket vs. 30
- 4x Memory Bandwidth
- 3x on-die Cache
- Cache latency reduced by 50%
- 5x I/O Bandwidth
- 15 metal layers vs. 9
- eDRAM vs SRAM
POWER8 Unique Technology
- CAPI Technology
- L4 Cache
- Dynamic Overclocking
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 Is Designed for Superior Performance
Sandy
Bridge EP
Ivy Bridge
EP
Ivy Bridge
EX
Haswell
EP
E5-x6xx
E5-26xx v2
E7-88xx v2
E5-26xx v3
1.7-3.7
1.9-3.4
1.6-3.5
3.0-4.35
GHz
1,2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2, 4, 8
Max Threads /
sock
16
24
30
36
96
Max L1 Cache
32KB
32KB*
32KB*
64 KB
64KB
Max L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256KB
512 KB
Max L3 Cache
20 MB
30 MB
37.5 MB
45 MB
96 MB
Max L4 Cache
0
0
0
0
128 MB
31.4-51.2
GB/s
42.6-59.7
GB/s
68-85**
GB/s
51-68
GB/s
230 - 410
GB/sec
Clock rates
(GHz)
SMT options
Memory
Bandwidth
1.8–3.6
POWER8
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
*32KB running in “Non-RAS mode”, Only 16KB with ECC Error correction
**85GB running in “Non-RAS mode” = dual-device error NOT supported
6
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Intel’s Performance per Core is Not Increasing
Over Previous Generation
RPE2** per Core
2500
2 Socket HP Servers
2283
2069
2049
1921
2000
1500
1000
Sandy Bridge
EP
2.9 GHz
16 cores
Ivy Bridge EP
2.7 GHz
Ivy Bridge EX
2.8 GHz
Haswell EP
2.3 GHz
24 cores
30 cores
36 cores
500
0
The number shown is best in each category (sockets and number of cores)
**Gartner RPE2 Details:
http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/RPE2-methodology-details.jsp
RPE2** numbers are derived from the following
six benchmark inputs:
SAP SD Two-Tier, TPC-C, TPC-H, SPECjbb2006
and two SPEC CPU2006 components
The data on this chart is derived from RPE2 from Gartner, Inc.'s Competitive Profile tool. © 2014 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
7
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 per Core Performance is Increasing!
3500
This was a POWER8 Design Goal
1500
1000
500
POWER7+
2000
POWER8
2500
POWER7
RPE2** per core
3000
0
730
3.55 GHz
16 cores
2 sockets
730+
4.20 GHz
16 cores
2 sockets
The number shown is best in each category (sockets and number of cores)
**Gartner RPE2 Details:
http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/RPE2-methodology-details.jsp
S824
3.52 GHz
24 cores
2 sockets
RPE2** numbers are derived from the following
six benchmark inputs:
SAP SD Two-Tier, TPC-C, TPC-H, SPECjbb2006
and two SPEC CPU2006 components
The data on this chart is derived from RPE2 from Gartner, Inc.'s Competitive Profile tool. © 2014 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
8
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Why Is This Important?
POWER8 Design Focus and Results
- More threads, cache
- More memory bandwidth
- More I/O bandwidth
- Fastest performance for all workloads
- Ready to address new Big Data and
Analytic workloads
Higher Performance per core
- Lower Software costs and TCA
- Fewer servers, lower support costs
CAPI
- New Accelerator technologies
Intel Design Focus and Results
-
More sockets per server
More cores per server
Performance per core
remains the same or is less
9
- Faster overall SERVER performance
- Overall solution cost is higher
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
10
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
11
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Client Tier
These user
interactions are
repeated by
thousands of
simulated users
RPT Workbench
Deploy
1. Friendly Bank home page
2. Logon
3. Check account balances
4. Transfer funds (2)
5. View transaction history
6. View profile
7. Logoff
Stats
NETWORK
Test Harness Setup: POWER8 vs. Intel Ivy Bridge
Using Friendly Bank WAS Application
RPT Agent
RPT Agent
Drive Application
RPT Agent
RPT Agent
RPT Agent
RPT Agent
RPT Agent
Database Tier
Server Tier
System Under Test
PowerVM
Friendly
VMware ESXi
WebSphere
WebSphere
Bank
Friendly
WebSphere
Application
Bank
Friendly
WebSphere
Application
Bank
Friendly
WebSphere
Application
Bank
Friendly
WebSphere
Application
Bank
Friendly
WebSphere
Application
Bank
Friendly
Application
Bank
Application
Virtual Machines
12
DB2
DB2
DB2
DB2
DB2
DB2
DB2
DB2
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Throughput per Core
POWER8 SMT delivers more performance per
core than Intel Ivy Bridge
SMT8
SMT4
SMT2
2.1 – 2.3x
SMT1
Intel Ivy Bridge EP (Hyper-Threading – Maximum)
Time in Seconds
This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 3.52 GHz, 256GB Memory, AIX 7.1 TL3 SP3, WAS
8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores 2.7 GHz, 256 GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1. The results were obtained under laboratory conditions, and not in an
actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and
other systems variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment.
13
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux demonstrate SMT throughput
improvement compared to Ivy Bridge
Throughput on 24-core servers
POWER8 with RHEL
SMT = Simultaneous Multi-Threading
200000
2.1X
180000
188,184
171,920
160000
140000
131,696
120000
100000
90,760
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
SMT 1
SMT 2
SMT 4
SMT 8
This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 256GB Memory, 3.52 GHz, RHEL
7.0, WAS 8.5.5.2, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores, 256GB Memory, 2.7 GHz, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1. The results were obtained under
laboratory conditions, and not in an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such,
customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration,
applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor, and the Total Cost of
Acquisition (TCA) includes the list HW and SW prices and 3 years of service & support which is then divided by the number of transactions to get $ per user interaction per second.
14
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Linux on POWER8 with WAS Delivers Over TWICE the
Throughput Compared to Ivy Bridge at 49% Lower Cost
Web Application
Power S824
Linux
WAS WAS
…..
RHEL RHEL
WAS WAS
4 VMs
188,184
User Interactions
per second
2.2x
Faster
RHEL RHEL
$3.15
PowerVM
DB2
2S/24 Core POWER8 (3.52 GHz)
per UI per sec
WebSphere on platform
Database off platform
49%
Lower cost
per UI per sec
Online Banking Workload v3.6
15
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
16
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
How many virtual machines can you run on a
single server? It depends……
3. Variance of the Workload
1. Size of the Workload
High Variability
Performance
Interactions
per second
Large
Small
Workload
2. Size of the Server
16 cores
24 cores
48 cores
Low Variability
Workload Density
…
Frequency of Occurrence
4. Workload Management
Mixed Workloads
Hypervisor
Low Priority
High Priority
Number of cores
17
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 Packs Up To 2.3x More Virtual Machines
Than Intel On Same Number Of Cores
Online Banking Workload
Ivy Bridge-EP
(24-cores 2.7 GHz) & Competitive Hypervisor
90
82
Number of VMs per server
80
POWER8
(24-cores 3.52 GHz) & PowerVM
PowerVM / RHEL vs. Competitive Hypervisor / RHEL
70
60
50
2.3x
40
30
36
23
20
2.1x
10
11
0
728
1960
10
6
Workload Size – User Interactions per second
1.6x
3920
This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 3.52 GHz, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1.
compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores 2.7 GHz, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 and a Competitive hypervisor. The results were obtained under laboratory conditions, and not in an actual customer
environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems
variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment.
18
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 with PowerVM Supports 2.3x More Large
Workloads Than Ivy Bridge with Competitive Hypervisor
Web Application
Power S824
Linux
WAS WAS
…..
RHEL RHEL
WAS WAS
82 VMs
82 Workloads
2.3x
$7,218 per Workload
Workloads
RHEL RHEL
PowerVM
DB2
50%
2S/24 Core POWER8 (3.52 GHz)
Online Banking Workloads each running
WebSphere on platform, Database off platform for both tests
19
More
728 User Interactions/Sec
Lower cost
per Workload
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
20
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Workload Prioritization Test Configuration –
Apply a Constant and Variable Workload
POWER8 E870
Low Priorities
0.25 Entitlement
5 VPs
High Priorities
4.75 Entitlement
5 VPs
WAS
DB2
. LPARs
......
WAS
DB2
RHEL 7
RHEL 7
PowerVM
PowerVM
40 Cores POWER E870 - 4.19 GHz
Intel Ivy Bridge EX
High Priorities
950,000 Shares
10 vCPUs
WAS
DB2
Low Priorities
50,000 Shares
10 vCPUs
. .VMs
.....
WAS
DB2
RHEL 7
RHEL 7
VMWare ESXi 5.5
60 Cores Intel Ivy Bridge EX - 2.80 GHz
This is an IBM internal study of a on-line banking workload in a controlled laboratory environment. The IBM system consists of one POWER8 E870 with 40 cores @ 4.19 GHz and 1 TB
memory running RHEL 7.0, WAS ND 8.5.5.3, JDK 7.1 and DB2 v10.5 FP3. The Intel-based system consists of one Ivy Bridge EX (E7-4890 v2) with 60 cores @ 2.8 GHz and 1 TB memory
running RHEL 7.0, WAS ND 8.5.5.3, JDK 7.1, and DB2 v10.5 FP3. Customer applications, differences in the systems deployed and other system variations or testing conditions may produce
different results.
21
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
High Priority Web Workload Running
Standalone – Constant Load
Constant Load
E870 40 cores
High Priority
throughput:
98.16 Million
transactions / 60 min
2.1x
more
POWER8
transactions
vs.
Intel
22
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
High Priority Workload on E870 has Minimal
Degradation when Low Priority Workload Added
E870 40 cores
Constant Load
High Priority Workload
- 6.0% throughput reduction
due to workload mixing
- 5.0% given up for low
priority workload entitlements
98.16M 87.36M (High Priority)
2.04M (Low Priority)
5.8x
More
Efficient
This is an IBM internal study of a on-line banking workload in a controlled laboratory environment. The IBM system consists of one POWER8 E870 with 40 cores @ 4.19 GHz and 1 TB
memory running ARHEL 7.0, WAS ND 8.5.5.3, JDK 7.1 and DB2 v10.5 FP3. The Intel-based system consists of one Ivy Bridge EX (E7-4890 v2) with 60 cores @ 2.8 GHz and 1 TB
memory running RHEL 7.0, WAS ND 8.5.5.3, JDK 7.1, and DB2 v10.5 FP3. Customer applications, differences in the systems deployed and other system variations or testing conditions
may produce different results.
23
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Run Mixed Workloads on the Same Server to
Simplify and Save Money – Variable Load
High Priority
Workloads
Comparison to determine
which platform provides the
lowest TCA over 3 years
with variable loads
34.77M
Txn
Low Priority
Workload
High Priority
workloads
62.78M Txn/hr
28.01M
Txn
17.78M
Txn
Low priority
workloads
POWER8 E870 with RHEL 7.0
17.78M Txn/hr
IBM WebSphere ND 8.5
IBM DB2 10 ESE
High priority online banking
workloads driving a total of 62.78 M
transactions per hour and low priority
discretionary workloads
62.78M
Txn
High Priority
LPARs
17.78M
Txn
Low Priority
LPARs
RHEL on
Power E870
40 Cores
3 Year TCA:
$3.49M
73%
lower cost
This is an IBM internal study of a on-line banking workload in a controlled laboratory environment. The IBM system consists of one POWER8 E870 with 40 cores @ 4.19 GHz and 1 TB
memory running RHEL 7.0, WAS ND 8.5.5.3, JDK 7.1 and DB2 v10.5 FP3. The Intel-based system consists of one Ivy Bridge EX (E7-4890 v2) with 60 cores @ 2.8 GHz) and 1 TB
memory running RHEL 7.0, WAS ND 8.5.5.3, JDK 7.1, and DB2 v10.5 FP3. Customer applications, differences in the systems deployed and other system variations or testing conditions
may produce different results. Cost analysis based on 3 year total cost of acquisition of hardware, software and support services over a 3 year period. Prices for both IBM and
competitor systems based on US list prices valid as of December 2014.
24
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
25
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
High level overview of OLTP brokerage workload
used in this test
Meant to be a more realistic OLTP workload,
models a financial/stock brokerage system
– Sub-second response times
– Multiple access streams
Data Application Architecture
–
–
–
–
Multiple tables, indexes, and data types
Requires referential integrity
Complex transactions
Multiple interacting subsystems
Two Metrics can be used
1. Transactions per second (tps) measures total
transactions per sec
2. Completed Trades per second measures fully
completed transactions
26
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Competitor DB on Power S824 is 2.1x Faster than PreIntegrated Database Competitor at 44% Lower Cost
600GB Brokerage Workload
IBM Power S824 with Database Competitor
Power S824
with 24 cores
512 GB RAM
AIX 7.1, 64-bit
FlashSystem 840
12c
988
$3,326
Completed Trades
per second
per Completed
Trade/sec
Competitor DB
2.1x
Faster
44%
Lower cost
per Completed
Trade/sec
27
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
28
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
The business intelligence concurrent
throughput test used in this study
3 Users doing
complex reports
1 User
1 User
1 User
CR8
CR9
CR13
1 User
2 Users
2 Users
2 Users
3 Users
1 User
2 Users
IR1
IR2
IR3
IR4
IR6
IR7
IR12
3 Connections
Each user
executes its own
version of a
given report in a
fixed duration of
2 hours
29
42 Users doing
simple reports
15 Users doing
intermediate Reports
15 Connections
Data Server
2 Users 12 Users 8 Users
IR14
SR5
10 Users
12 Users
SR15
SR16
SR10
42 Connections
Each report
executes one
or more SQL queries
(or statements)
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
Examples of Simple and Complex Queries
Example of a typical simple query: 2-3 parameters compared
- QUERY 2A Simple_GoBusinessView_Dashboard select distinct "Product_forecast"."YEAR" "Year1" from "GOSL"."PRODUCT_FORECAST"
"Product_forecast"
Example of a typical complex query: 100-150 parameters compared
-- QUERY 3A Complex_TPA_PDF
with "Order_method_dimension14" as (
select "Order_method_dimension"."ORDER_METHOD_KEY" "ORDER_METHOD_KEY" , min("Order_method_dimension"."ORDER_METHOD_EN") "Order_method"
from "GOSLDW"."ORDER_METHOD_DIMENSION" "Order_method_dimension"
group by "Order_method_dimension"."ORDER_METHOD_KEY"), "Product_line15" as (
select "Product_line"."PRODUCT_LINE_CODE" "PRODUCT_LINE_CODE" , min("Product_line"."PRODUCT_LINE_EN") "Product_line"
from "GOSLDW"."PRODUCT_LINE" "Product_line"
group by "Product_line"."PRODUCT_LINE_CODE"), "Sales_territory_dimension12" as (
select "Sales_territory_dimension"."COUNTRY_KEY" "COUNTRY_KEY" , "Sales_territory_dimension"."COUNTRY_CODE" "COUNTRY_CODE" ,
"Sales_territory_dimension"."SALES_TERRITORY_KEY" "SALES_TERRITORY_KEY" , "Sales_territory_dimension"."SALES_TERRITORY_CODE" "SALES_TERRITORY_CODE" ,
"Sales_territory_dimension"."COUNTRY_EN" "COUNTRY_EN" , "Sales_territory_dimension"."FLAG_IMAGE" "FLAG_IMAGE31" , "Sales_territory_dimension"."SALES_TERRITORY_EN"
"SALES_TERRITORY_EN"
from "GOSLDW"."SALES_TERRITORY_DIMENSION" "Sales_territory_dimension"), "Gender_lookup13" as (
select "Gender_lookup"."GENDER_CODE" "GENDER_CODE" , min("Gender_lookup"."GENDER") "GENDER"
from "GOSLDW"."GENDER_LOOKUP" "Gender_lookup"
where "Gender_lookup"."LANGUAGE" = 'EN'
group by "Gender_lookup"."GENDER_CODE"), "Retailer__model_" as (
select "Retailer_dimension11"."RETAILER_SITE_KEY" "Retailer_site_key" , "Sales_territory_dimension12"."SALES_TERRITORY_KEY" "Sales_territory_key" ,
"Sales_territory_dimension12"."SALES_TERRITORY_EN" "Sales_territory"
from "GOSLDW"."RETAILER_DIMENSION" "Retailer_dimension11", "Sales_territory_dimension12", "Gender_lookup13"
where "Retailer_dimension11"."GENDER_CODE" = "Gender_lookup13"."GENDER_CODE" and "Retailer_dimension11"."COUNTRY_KEY" = "Sales_territory_dimension12"."COUNTRY_KEY")
select "Order_method_dimension14"."ORDER_METHOD_KEY" "Order_method0key" , "Order_method_dimension14"."Order_method" "Order_method1" ,
"Product_line15"."PRODUCT_LINE_CODE" "Product_linekey" , "Product_line15"."Product_line" "Product_line0" , "Retailer__model_"."Sales_territory_key" "Retailer_territorykey" ,
"Retailer__model_"."Sales_territory" "Sales_territory" , cast("Time_dimension17"."CURRENT_YEAR" as char(4)) "Yearkey" , cast("Time_dimension17"."QUARTER_KEY" as char(6)) "Quarterkey" ,
cast("Time_dimension17"."MONTH_KEY" as char(6)) "Monthkey" , sum("Sales_fact18"."GROSS_PROFIT") "Gross_profit“ from "Order_method_dimension14", "Product_line15", "Retailer__model_",
"GOSLDW"."TIME_DIMENSION" "Time_dimension17", "GOSLDW"."SALES_FACT" "Sales_fact18", "GOSLDW"."PRODUCT_TYPE" "Product_type19", "GOSLDW"."PRODUCT_DIMENSION"
"Product_dimension20"
where "Order_method_dimension14"."ORDER_METHOD_KEY" = "Sales_fact18"."ORDER_METHOD_KEY" and "Product_dimension20"."PRODUCT_KEY" = "Sales_fact18"."PRODUCT_KEY" and
"Product_type19"."PRODUCT_TYPE_CODE" = "Product_dimension20"."PRODUCT_TYPE_CODE" and "Product_line15"."PRODUCT_LINE_CODE" = "Product_type19"."PRODUCT_LINE_CODE"
and "Time_dimension17"."DAY_KEY" = "Sales_fact18"."ORDER_DAY_KEY" and "Retailer__model_"."Retailer_site_key" = "Sales_fact18"."RETAILER_SITE_KEY"
group by "Order_method_dimension14"."ORDER_METHOD_KEY", "Order_method_dimension14"."Order_method", "Product_line15"."PRODUCT_LINE_CODE", "Product_line15"."Product_line",
"Retailer__model_"."Sales_territory_key", "Retailer__model_"."Sales_territory", cast("Time_dimension17"."CURRENT_YEAR" as char(4)), cast("Time_dimension17"."QUARTER_KEY" as char(6)),
cast("Time_dimension17"."MONTH_KEY" as char(6))
30
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
DB2 BLU & Cognos on POWER8 delivers analytics
reports faster than Ivy Bridge
18x
BLU Lightening Test (Telecom Analytics workload)
Faster
DB2 BLU & Cognos on POWER8
S822L, 3.4 GHz
16-cores active
S824, 3.52 GHz
24-cores
31
System Cost
$263,730
43,944
Simple Reports
per Hour
7,758
Intermediate
Reports per Hour
Simple Reports
40x
Faster
Intermediate
Reports
212
Complex
Reports per Hour
2,267
Simple Reports
per Hour
185
Intermediate
Reports per Hour
3.0x
0.27
Complex
Reports per Hour
Lower
747x
Faster
Complex Reports
Price
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Provide the best customer
value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
32
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
BigInsights on POWER8 beats the competition
with TeraSort benchmark
Normalized Performance
GB / Core / Min
1.4
1.7X
1.2
1.27
GB/core/min
1
0.8
0.67
0.6
HP
Ivy Bridge
EP with
Cloudera
0.4
0.73
0.75
SGI
Ivy Bridge
EP with
Cloudera
Cisco
0.2
0
Xeon E5-2697v2
8 nodes
192 cores
1 TB
Xeon E5-2630v2
24 nodes
288 cores
10 TB
Sandy Bridge
EP with
Apache
Hadoop
Xeon E5-2665
16 nodes
256 cores
10 TB
POWER8
with
BigInsights
S822L
8 nodes
192 cores
10 TB
Cisco Paper - http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/borderless-networks/advanced-services/le_tera.pdf
SGI Paper - http://www.sgi.com/pdfs/4440.pdf
HP Ivy Bridge with Cloudera and POWER8 with BigInsights were tested in IBM laboratories
33
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
IBM BigInsights with Big SQL delivers Big Data
queries faster than Ivy Bridge
Modern Business Intelligent workload queries
BigInsights v3.0 on 8 S822L data nodes
S822L, 3.3 GHz
24 cores
256 GB Memory
RHEL 6.5
34
11.2x
Time to complete queries
in 7 concurrent streams
8 hours
40 min
Faster
4.4x
Lower
Price
Performance
© 2015 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux – The Best Value
Purpose Built
Best Value
1. Architecture Matters
Better
Performance
2. Best Price / Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
35
Java Applications
Workload density
Lower
Cost
Mixed workloads
OLTP
Analytics
Better
Service
Big Data
© 2015 IBM Corporation