In my production environment I am running Oracle on Solaris 9 on a Sun
Fire V440 (2x 1.5cpu's and 4gb memory). The Databases are stored on a
NAS device not locally. I am looking to upgrade my computing power and
am looking for opinions on the best upgrade path. We are looking to
roughly double the amount of traffic on our website (driven by the DB)
over the next 6-12 months and want to be prepared.

I can upgrade the memory on the current server to 8GB from 4GB (not
sure on cost yet)
I can add 2 additional CPU's with 2GB each to get to 4CPU / 8GB (not
sure on cost yet)
I can buy an X4200 with 2x dual core, and 8GB memory. ($8,195.00 on
their website)

The x4200 sounds really appealing but I am almost scared because it is
so 'cheap' compared to another V440.

My budget is around $10k, i'm just now starting to research the prices
for the first two upgrades. I'm looking for the best performance for
my $.
Our database is a classic OLTP database with the database mounted on a
NetApp filer over gig ethernet.

I am also not shy about not using Solaris on the x4200 if other admins
had better results with another distribution and Oracle.

Thank you for your input.

RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:
> In my production environment I am running Oracle on Solaris 9 on a Sun
> Fire V440 (2x 1.5cpu's and 4gb memory). The Databases are stored on a
> NAS device not locally. I am looking to upgrade my computing power and
> am looking for opinions on the best upgrade path. We are looking to
> roughly double the amount of traffic on our website (driven by the DB)
> over the next 6-12 months and want to be prepared.
>
> I can upgrade the memory on the current server to 8GB from 4GB (not
> sure on cost yet)
> I can add 2 additional CPU's with 2GB each to get to 4CPU / 8GB (not
> sure on cost yet)
> I can buy an X4200 with 2x dual core, and 8GB memory. ($8,195.00 on
> their website)
>
> The x4200 sounds really appealing but I am almost scared because it is
> so 'cheap' compared to another V440.
>
> My budget is around $10k, i'm just now starting to research the prices
> for the first two upgrades. I'm looking for the best performance for
> my $.
> Our database is a classic OLTP database with the database mounted on a
> NetApp filer over gig ethernet.
>
> I am also not shy about not using Solaris on the x4200 if other admins
> had better results with another distribution and Oracle.
>
> Thank you for your input.

The upgrade path for the 440 with the 2x additional CPU kit
is straigt forward and you do not have any software related
( SPARC -> AMD64 ) issuses with oracle and other software
that you need to take care of.

The amount of workhours that you will have to put into a
sparc -> amd64 conversion will clearly eradicate the
cost benefit of buying an X4200, as you'd need to reinstall
everything
from scratch. Thats at least a full weeks work with the
reinstalltion of Oracle and possible database troubles
( Endian-ness anyone ? )


The Solaris Sparc environment is still a lot more full fledged than

the Solaris AMD64 env.
there is still Subsystems and Apps that is not available on AMD64.

If you are afraid that the 4 cpu 440 wont handle you future load
Look at the T2000 server instead. Evaluate if your app
can run on the T2000.

//Lars

Thanks Lars, so from a processing performance standpoint, how would you
rate the V440, x4200 and T2000? Would I get better performance by
upgrading my current server or purchasing a new one?

I'm trying to find some performance matrix out there but with the
different chips it makes it hard to compare apples to apples.

-Roy
tunla wrote:
> The upgrade path for the 440 with the 2x additional CPU kit
> is straigt forward and you do not have any software related
> ( SPARC -> AMD64 ) issuses with oracle and other software
> that you need to take care of.
>
> The amount of workhours that you will have to put into a
> sparc -> amd64 conversion will clearly eradicate the
> cost benefit of buying an X4200, as you'd need to reinstall
> everything
> from scratch. Thats at least a full weeks work with the
> reinstalltion of Oracle and possible database troubles
> ( Endian-ness anyone ? )
>
>
> The Solaris Sparc environment is still a lot more full fledged than
>
> the Solaris AMD64 env.
> there is still Subsystems and Apps that is not available on AMD64.
>
> If you are afraid that the 4 cpu 440 wont handle you future load
> Look at the T2000 server instead. Evaluate if your app
> can run on the T2000.
>
> //Lars

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:

Please don't top post.

> Thanks Lars, so from a processing performance standpoint, how would you
> rate the V440, x4200 and T2000? Would I get better performance by
> upgrading my current server or purchasing a new one?

It's hard to say, but given Sun's current try before you buy programs,
it might be a good idea to get an X4200 and T2000 to see how well they
cope with your workload, and then evaluate the winner against the extra
CPUs for your V440.

> I'm trying to find some performance matrix out there but with the
> different chips it makes it hard to compare apples to apples.

Indeed. :-/

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Hi,

RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:
> In my production environment I am running Oracle on Solaris 9 on a Sun
> Fire V440 (2x 1.5cpu's and 4gb memory). The Databases are stored on a
> NAS device not locally. I am looking to upgrade my computing power and
> am looking for opinions on the best upgrade path. We are looking to
> roughly double the amount of traffic on our website (driven by the DB)
> over the next 6-12 months and want to be prepared.
>
> I can upgrade the memory on the current server to 8GB from 4GB (not
> sure on cost yet)
> I can add 2 additional CPU's with 2GB each to get to 4CPU / 8GB (not
> sure on cost yet)
> I can buy an X4200 with 2x dual core, and 8GB memory. ($8,195.00 on
> their website)
>
> The x4200 sounds really appealing but I am almost scared because it is
> so 'cheap' compared to another V440.
>
> My budget is around $10k, i'm just now starting to research the prices
> for the first two upgrades. I'm looking for the best performance for
> my $.
> Our database is a classic OLTP database with the database mounted on a
> NetApp filer over gig ethernet.
>
> I am also not shy about not using Solaris on the x4200 if other admins
> had better results with another distribution and Oracle.
>
> Thank you for your input.
>
Is memory or CPU a problem since the cost of these are alot different,
it is not clear?

The biggest problem talking to sellers is that they never give you want
you want, simple troublefree enhancements. They always give you want
they want to sell (:

The absolut cheapest for you no way how you count must be to upgrade or
get a new Sparc server then you have no problems what so ever, but Sun
don't want to sell Sparc this Quarter until the Ultrasparc IIIi+ is out,
so they sell what they have today T2000 and X4500... (:

But if I would be you I would keep waiting until it arrives and go for
the comming Ultrasparc IIIi+ or unless you come to a critical point you
have a plan B to get un upgrade.

/michael

RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks Lars, so from a processing performance standpoint, how would you
> rate the V440, x4200 and T2000? Would I get better performance by
> upgrading my current server or purchasing a new one?
>
> I'm trying to find some performance matrix out there but with the
> different chips it makes it hard to compare apples to apples.
>

What can be said is that the T2000 will be slower if you measure

a single transaction. But will handle a lot more transactions
concurrently.
the T2000 has "hardware context swithching" for 32 processes,
whilst
the X4200 and V440 only handles 4 prcoesses at a time.

The 4 cpu V440 has 4 memory banks whilst the x4200 has only 2.
which should give the V440 higher memory throughput

The CPU perfomance of the DualCore Opteron 285 in the highend
x4200 is ofcourse much better that the performance of 2 times the
UltraSparc IIIi

I agree with Rich that the only way to find the answer
is to run your App on the 3 servers.
But look for Oracle benchmarks ........

Hi,

tunla wrote:
> RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Thanks Lars, so from a processing performance standpoint, how would you
>>rate the V440, x4200 and T2000? Would I get better performance by
>>upgrading my current server or purchasing a new one?
>>
>>I'm trying to find some performance matrix out there but with the
>>different chips it makes it hard to compare apples to apples.
>>
>
>
> What can be said is that the T2000 will be slower if you measure
>
> a single transaction. But will handle a lot more transactions
> concurrently.
> the T2000 has "hardware context swithching" for 32 processes,
> whilst
> the X4200 and V440 only handles 4 prcoesses at a time.
Off topic

Since I assume that you are a Swede to you should know that we did
"hardware context swithching" for 40 years ago, I would guess that we
actually invented it and it did util recently(few month ago) control all
Civil Aviation in Sweden

And the OS run was OS-2! which was made by ENEA now doing OSE which is
in many many mobiles and all /// systems.

Today "hardware context swithching" is done by moving the OS scheduler
into hardware, thats fast!

The name of these super "first of its kind"? Realtime CPUs was Censor
9103,9107,9109(still in full operation in Civil Aviation in countries)
made by DATASAAB and later /// SAABTECH Sweden.

/michael

Michael Laajanen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tunla wrote:
> > RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks Lars, so from a processing performance standpoint, how would you
> >>rate the V440, x4200 and T2000? Would I get better performance by
> >>upgrading my current server or purchasing a new one?
> >>
> >>I'm trying to find some performance matrix out there but with the
> >>different chips it makes it hard to compare apples to apples.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What can be said is that the T2000 will be slower if you measure
> >
> > a single transaction. But will handle a lot more transactions
> > concurrently.
> > the T2000 has "hardware context swithching" for 32 processes,
> > whilst
> > the X4200 and V440 only handles 4 prcoesses at a time.
> Off topic
>
> Since I assume that you are a Swede to you should know that we did
> "hardware context swithching" for 40 years ago, I would guess that we
> actually invented it and it did util recently(few month ago) control all
> Civil Aviation in Sweden
>
> And the OS run was OS-2! which was made by ENEA now doing OSE which is
> in many many mobiles and all /// systems.
>
> Today "hardware context swithching" is done by moving the OS scheduler
> into hardware, thats fast!
>
> The name of these super "first of its kind"? Realtime CPUs was Censor
> 9103,9107,9109(still in full operation in Civil Aviation in countries)
> made by DATASAAB and later /// SAABTECH Sweden.
>
> /michael

I did not know that so thanks.

I Guess most pre-microprocessor computers had some form
of " hardware context switching". In the company I was first
employed
fresh out of school ( 1981 ICL ) we had the S-10 computer
which
"OS" relied on hardware switching between 20 processes every
20 msecs

Then the microprocessors changed everything into software.

Now we are seeing the the playing field change again into some
hybrid combination of hardware assisted software context switching.
The main reason for this is that memory is slow compared to CPUs
and the hardware context switch allows the CPU to quickly continue
working on another process whilst at the same time wait for data
for the first task.

( yes I am also Swedish :-) )
//Lars

tunla wrote:
> RXMiller@gmail.com wrote:
> > Thanks Lars, so from a processing performance standpoint, how would you
> > rate the V440, x4200 and T2000? Would I get better performance by
> > upgrading my current server or purchasing a new one?
> >
> > I'm trying to find some performance matrix out there but with the
> > different chips it makes it hard to compare apples to apples.

> What can be said is that the T2000 will be slower if you measure
> a single transaction. But will handle a lot more transactions
> concurrently ....

If you need floating point performance the x4200 would be fastest
of the 3. If you need integer performance for, say, 8 processes
or fewer the x4200 will be the fastest. If you need integer only
performance for a large number of simultaneous processes, 16
or more, the T2000 will be fastest. I can't really think of a
scenario where the V440 will be faster than either of the other two
- except for the case where you only have SPARC binaries available...

> The 4 cpu V440 has 4 memory banks whilst the x4200 has only 2.
> which should give the V440 higher memory throughput

It's not quite that simple. The V440 uses a different CPU
interconnect to the x4200 and different RAM. The theoretical
maximum RAM bandwidth on the V440 is 16.8 GB/s (4.2GB/s
per CPU) whereas the x4200 has a theoretical maximum of 12 GB/s
(6 GB/s per CPU). However the V440 uses slower RAM than the
x4200 which means in practise the x4200 has higher memory bandwidth.

The one advantage the V440 has in memory terms is that you can
cram more into the box, 32GB vs only 16GB for the x4200 but the
x4200 will also be capable of 32GB once 4GB DIMMs are available..

> The CPU perfomance of the DualCore Opteron 285 in the highend
> x4200 is ofcourse much better that the performance of 2 times the
> UltraSparc IIIi

Yes. If you look at various benchmarks you'll find that pretty much
any configuration of x4200 (except a box with only one CPU)
will give more CPU performance than the fastest V440.

To be honest I think the UltraSPARC-IIIi machines should soon be
disappearing from the price lists. The new Niagara II CPU is already
being tested, it will have much better floating point performance than
Niagara (thanks to having 8 FP units instead of 1), it will have
support
for faster RAM, more threads, higher clock speeds and 2-way operation.


It pretty much renders UltraSPARC-IIIi obselete.

--
Phillip Fayers http://phillipfayers.blogspot.com/
IT Manager, School of Psychology, Cardiff University.
Attribute these comments to me, not my employer

phillip.fayers@gmail.com wrote:
> To be honest I think the UltraSPARC-IIIi machines should soon be
> disappearing from the price lists. The new Niagara II CPU is already
> being tested, it will have much better floating point performance than
> Niagara (thanks to having 8 FP units instead of 1), it will have
> support
> for faster RAM, more threads, higher clock speeds and 2-way operation.
>
> It pretty much renders UltraSPARC-IIIi obselete.

I suspect that the US-IIIi will hang on for a while - pretty much the
same way Sun was selling the underpowered SB-100's and SB-150's as
development machines for the bigger iron. The US-IIIi+ was supposed to
be out now - apparently some problems with the V-215 and V-445 - also
wonder whether the US-IIIi+ is too-little, too-late.

A dual Niagara-II does sounds like it would make for a kick-ass
workstation for software that supports lotsa threads (Monte-Carlo
simulations anyone??). There are still some applications that don't
thread very well - including, strangely enough, a Monte-Carlo simulation
(although a special case - normally the code parallelizes just fine).

- Erik