WHITE PAPER FUJITSU PRIMERGY SERVERS PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6

Transcription

1 WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 WHITE PAPER FUJITSU PRIMERGY SERVERS PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 This document contains a summary of the benchmarks executed for the PRIMERGY RX300 S6. The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 performance data are compared with the data of other PRIMERGY models and discussed. In addition to the benchmark results, an explanation has been included for each benchmark and for the benchmark environment. Version Contents Document history... 2 Technical data... 4 SPECcpu SPECjbb SPECpower_ssj OLTP TPC-E with TPC-Energy SAP SD vservcon mark V mark V STREAM Literature Contact Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 1 (60)

2 Document history Version 1.0 First report version including the benchmark chapters SPECcpu2006 Measurements with Xeon E5503, E5506, E5507, L5609, L5630, E5620, E5630, E5640, X5667, X5677, L5640, X5650, X5660, X5670 and X5680 SPECjbb2005 Measurement with Xeon X5680 SPECpower_ssj2008 Measurement with Xeon X5670 and 1 x SSD GB SAP SD Certification number vservcon Measurements with Xeon E5507, L5609, L5630, E5620, E5630, E5640, X5667, X5677, L5640, X5650, X5660, X5670, X5680 Version 1.1 New benchmark chapters: mark V1 Measurement with Xeon X5677 Updated benchmark chapters: SPECcpu2006 All results have been published at Version 1.2 Updated benchmark chapters: mark V1 Measurement with Xeon X5680 Version 1.3 New benchmark chapters: OLTP-2 Measurements with Xeon E5503, E5506, E5507, E5620, E5630, E5640, L5609, L5630, L5640, X5650, X5660, X5667, X5670, X5677, X5680 TPC-E Measurement with Xeon X5680 Version 2.0 New benchmark chapters: STREAM Measurements with Xeon E5603, E5606, E5607, E5645, E5649, X5647, X5675, X5687 and X5690 Updated benchmark chapters: SPECcpu2006 Messungen mit Xeon E5603, E5606, E5607, E5645, E5649, X5647, X5675, X5687 and X5690 (Intel C++/Fortran-Compiler 12.0) SPECjbb2005 Measurement with Xeon X5690 SPECpower_ssj2008 Measurement with Xeon X5675 and 1 x SSD GB OLTP-2 New results for Xeon 55xx and 56xx processor series Page 2 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

3 TPC-E with TPC-Energy New TPC-E measurement with TPC-Energy (Xeon X5690) vservcon New results for Xeon 55xx and 56xx processor series Version 2.1 New benchmark chapters: mark V2 Measurement with Xeon X5690 Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 3 (60)

4 Technical data With only 2 height units, the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is a space-saving dual-socket rack server, which replaces the PRIMERGY RX300 S5. It has an Intel 5520 chip set, two Intel Xeon series 5500 or 5600 processors (Dual-Core, Quad-Core or Hexa-Core), 18 DIMM slots for up to 192 GB DDR3-SDRAM, an onboard 2-port 1-GB Ethernet controller and seven PCI slots (five PCI-Express 2.0 x4 and two PCI-Express 2.0 x8). The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is on offer in six versions with two different power supply units as well as three different drive bays. The drive bays provide space for either up to drives (SATA or SAS HDD) or up to drives or up to drives (SSD, SATA or SAS HDD). Detailed technical information is available in the data sheet PRIMERGY RX300 S6. Page 4 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

5 SPECcpu2006 Benchmark description SPECcpu2006 is a benchmark which measures the system efficiency with integer and floating-point operations. It consists of an integer test suite (SPECint2006) containing 12 applications and a floating-point test suite (SPECfp2006) containing 17 applications. Both test suites are extremely computing-intensive and concentrate on the CPU and the memory. Other components, such as Disk I/O and network, are not measured by this benchmark. SPECcpu2006 is not tied to a special operating system. The benchmark is available as source code and is compiled before the actual measurement. The used compiler version and their optimization settings also affect the measurement result. SPECcpu2006 contains two different performance measurement methods: the first method (SPECint2006 or SPECfp2006) determines the time which is required to process single task. The second method (SPECint_rate2006 or SPECfp_rate2006) determines the throughput, i.e. the number of tasks that can be handled in parallel. Both methods are also divided into two measurement runs, "base" and "peak" which differ in the use of compiler optimization. When publishing the results the base values are always used; the peak values are optional. Benchmark Arithmetics Type Compiler optimization SPECint2006 integer peak aggressive SPECint_base2006 integer base conservative SPECint_rate2006 integer peak aggressive SPECint_rate_base2006 integer base conservative SPECfp2006 floating point peak aggressive SPECfp_base2006 floating point base conservative SPECfp_rate2006 floating point peak aggressive SPECfp_rate_base2006 floating point base conservative Measurement result Speed Throughput Speed Throughput Application single-threaded multi-threaded single-threaded multi-threaded The measurement results are the geometric average from normalized ratio values which have been determined for individual benchmarks. The geometric average - in contrast to the arithmetic average - means that there is a weighting in favour of the lower individual results. Normalized means that the measurement is how fast is the test system compared to a reference system. Value 1 was defined for the SPECint_base2006-, SPECint_rate_base2006, SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp_rate_base2006 results of the reference system. For example, a SPECint_base2006 value of 2 means that the measuring system has handled this benchmark twice as fast as the reference system. A SPECfp_rate_base2006 value of 4 means that the measuring system has handled this benchmark some 4/[# base copies] times faster than the reference system. "# base copies specify how many parallel instances of the benchmark have been executed. Not every SPECcpu2006 measurement is submitted by for publication at SPEC. This is why the SPEC web pages do not have every result. As we archive the log files for all measurements, we can prove the correct implementation of the measurements at any time. Benchmark results The Xeon series 5500 and 5600 processors were measured on the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 and partially on the electronically equivalent PRIMERGY TX300 S6. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 5 (60)

6 Measurement series 1: On 16th March 2010 the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 together with the PRIMERGY TX300 S6 with two Xeon X5680 processors was ranked first in the Intel-based 2-socket server category for the benchmarks 1 SPECint_rate_base2006, SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate_base2006 and SPECfp_rate2006. The benchmark programs were compiled with Intel C++/Fortran Compiler 11.1 and run under SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (64-bit). All results have been published at Processor Cores GHz L3 cache QPI speed TDP SPECint_base chips SPECint chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Processor Cores GHz L3 cache QPI speed TDP SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECint_rate chip 2 chips 1 chip 2 chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt The above comparison values for competitive products have the 16th March 2010 status. The presented comparison is based on the SPECint_rate_base2006, SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate_base2006 and SPECfp_rate2006 results for Intel-based 2-socket servers. The current results can be found at Page 6 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

7 Processor Cores GHz L3 cache QPI speed TDP SPECfp_base chips SPECfp chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Processor Cores GHz L3 cache QPI speed TDP SPECfp_rate_base2006 SPECfp_rate chip 2 chips 1 chip 2 chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 7 (60)

8 Measurement series 2: Between December 2010 and March 2011 the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 was measured with Xeon series 5600 processors. On 3rd March 2011 the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with two Xeon X5690 processors was ranked first in the Intel-based 2-socket server category for the benchmark SPECint_rate_base The following four tables show results, in which all benchmark programs were compiled with the Intel C++/Fortran compiler 12.0 and run under SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP1 (64-bit). Results in bold print have been published at Results denoted as (est.) are estimated values. Processor Cores GHz L3-Cache QPI speed TDP SPECint_base chips SPECint chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 22.5 (est.) 23.6 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 24.0 (est.) 25.3 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 25.0 (est.) 26.5 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt 23.1 (est.) 23.9 (est.) Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt 28.5 (est.) 30 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 32.3 (est.) 34 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 33.7 (est.) 35 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 35.0 (est.) 37.0 (est.) Xeon X MB 5.86 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 41.5 (est.) 43.9 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 43.9 (est.) 46.5 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt 33.6 (est.) 35.5 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 37.7 (est.) 39.7 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 38.9 (est.) 41.1 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 40.3 (est.) 42.5 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 42.7 (est.) 45.0 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt The above comparison values for competitive products have the 3rd March 2011 status. The presented comparison is based on the SPECint_rate_base2006 results for Intel-based 2-socket servers. The current results can be found at Page 8 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

9 Processor Cores GHz L3-Cache QPI speed TDP SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECint_rate chip 2 chips 1 chip 2 chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 39.1 (est.) 76.8 (est.) 41.9 (est.) 82.9 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 75.3 (est.) 146 (est.) 79.5 (est.) 155 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 78.3 (est.) 151 (est.) 82.5 (est.) 161 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt 74.2 (est.) 145 (est.) 79.2 (est.) 153 (est.) Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt 99.5 (est.) 192 (est.) 105 (est.) 203 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 115 (est.) 224 (est.) 120 (est.) 234 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 119 (est.) 232 (est.) 125 (est.) 243 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 123 (est.) 239 (est.) 129 (est.) 251 (est.) Xeon X MB 5.86 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 145 (est.) 287 (est.) 152 (est.) 301 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 154 (est.) 304 (est.) 161 (est.) 317 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt 151 (est.) 286 (est.) 160 (est.) 305 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 177 (est.) 347 (est.) 188 (est.) 371 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 183 (est.) 356 (est.) 193 (est.) 381 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 187 (est.) 364 (est.) 198 (est.) 388 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 195 (est.) 382 (est.) 207 (est.) 409 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 9 (60)

10 Processor Cores GHz L3-Cache QPI speed TDP SPECfp_base chips SPECfp chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 33.1 (est.) 34.3 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 35.7 (est.) 37.2 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 37.1 (est.) 38.5 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt 35.0 (est.) 36.1 (est.) Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt 40.5 (est.) 43 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 45.2 (est.) 48 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 47.1 (est.) 50 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 48.8 (est.) 51.9 (est.) Xeon X MB 5.86 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 59.0 (est.) 62.9 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 61.6 (est.) 65.2 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt 62.0 (est.) 65.7 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 54.0 (est.) 57.8 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 56.3 (est.) 60.2 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 57.0 (est.) 60.9 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 60.2 (est.) 64.3 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Page 10 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

11 Processor Cores GHz L3-Cache QPI speed TDP SPECfp_rate_base2006 SPECfp_rate chip 2 chips 1 chip 2 chips Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 40.1 (est.) 75.8 (est.) 41.5 (est.) 80.2 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 64.9 (est.) 122 (est.) 66.9 (est.) 128 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt 66.6 (est.) 125 (est.) 68.7 (est.) 131 (est.) Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 4.80 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon L MB 4.80 GT/s 40 Watt 67.6 (est.) 125 (est.) 69.2 (est.) 128 (est.) Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 40 Watt 78.8 (est.) 144 (est.) 81.3 (est.) 150 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 90.9 (est.) 176 (est.) 93.5 (est.) 181 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 93.2 (est.) 180 (est.) 95.8 (est.) 186 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt 94.9 (est.) 182 (est.) 97.6 (est.) 188 (est.) Xeon X MB 5.86 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 113 (est.) 217 (est.) 116 (est.) 225 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 117 (est.) 225 (est.) 120 (est.) 233 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Xeon L MB 5.86 GT/s 60 Watt 114 (est.) 208 (est.) 116 (est.) 215 (est.) Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon E MB 5.86 GT/s 80 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 127 (est.) 244 (est.) 130 (est.) 252 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 128 (est.) 247 (est.) 132 (est.) 255 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt 131 (est.) 252 (est.) 135 (est.) 261 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 95 Watt Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt 135 (est.) 260 (est.) 138 (est.) 269 (est.) Xeon X MB 6.40 GT/s 130 Watt Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 11 (60)

12 The throughput with two processors both with the integer as well as the floating-point test suite is almost twice as large as that with one processor. SPECcpu2006: integer performance PRIMERGY RX300 S6 (2 sockets vs. 1 socket) x Xeon X x Xeon X5690 SPECint_rate2006 SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY RX300 S6 (2 sockets vs. 1 socket) SPECfp_rate x Xeon X x Xeon X5690 SPECfp_rate_base2006 Page 12 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

13 The following diagrams illustrate the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 in comparison to its predecessor, the PRIMERGY RX300 S5, in the respective most performant configuration. SPECcpu2006: integer performance PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. PRIMERGY RX300 S SPECint2006 SPECint_base PRIMERGY RX300 S5 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon W x Xeon X5687 SPECcpu2006: integer performance PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. PRIMERGY RX300 S SPECint_rate SPECint_rate_base PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 x Xeon W5590 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X5690 Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 13 (60)

14 SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. PRIMERGY RX300 S SPECfp SPECfp_base PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 x Xeon W5590 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X5687 SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. PRIMERGY RX300 S SPECfp_rate SPECfp_rate_base PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 x Xeon W5590 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X5690 Page 14 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

15 Benchmark environment Measurement series 1: All SPECcpu2006 measurements were made on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 or the electronic equivalent PRIMERGY TX300 S6 with the following hardware and software configuration: Hardware Model CPU Number of CPUs Primary cache Secondary cache Other cache Software Operating System PRIMERGY RX300 S6 / PRIMERGY TX300 S6 Xeon E5503, E5506, E5507, L5609, L5630, E5620, E5630, E5640, X5667, X5677, L5640, X5650, X5660, X5670, X chip: Xeon E5503: Xeon E5506, E5507, L5609, L5630, E5620, E5630, E5640, X5667, X5677: All others: 2 chips: Xeon E5503: Xeon E5506, E5507, L5609, L5630, E5620, E5630, E5640, X5667, X5677: All others: 32 kb instruction + 32 kb data on chip, per core 256 kb on chip, per core Xeon E5503, E5506, E5507: All others: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (64-bit) Compilers Intel C++/Fortran Compiler MB (I+D) on chip, per chip 12 MB (I+D) on chip, per chip 2 cores 4 cores 6 cores 4 cores 8 cores 12 cores Measurement series 2: All SPECcpu2006 measurements were made on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 or the electronic equivalent PRIMERGY TX300 S6 with the following hardware and software configuration: Hardware Model PRIMERGY RX300 S6 / PRIMERGY TX300 S6 CPU Xeon E5603, E5606, E5607, E5645, E5649, X5647, X5675, X5687, X5690 Number of CPUs Primary cache Secondary cache Other cache Software Operating System 1 chip: Xeon E5603, E5606, E5607, X5647, X5687: 4 cores All others: 6 cores 2 chips: Xeon E5603, E5606, E5607, X5647, X5687: 8 cores All others: 12 cores 32 KB instruction + 32 KB data on chip, per core 256 kb on chip, per core Xeon E5603, E5606, E5607: All others: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP1 (64-bit) Compilers Intel C++/Fortran Compiler 12.0 Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. 8 MB (I+D) on chip, per chip 12 MB (I+D) on chip, per chip Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 15 (60)

16 SPECjbb2005 Benchmark description SPECjbb2005 is a Java business benchmark that focuses on the performance of Java Server platforms. SPECjbb2005 is essentially a modernized SPECjbb2000. The main differences are: The transactions have become more complex in order to cover a greater functional scope. The working set of the benchmark has been enlarged to the extent that the total system load has increased. SPECjbb2000 allows only one active Java Virtual Machine instance (J) whereas SPECjbb2005 permits several instances, which in turn achieves greater closeness to reality, particularly with large systems. On the software side SPECjbb2005 primarily measures the performance of the J used with its just-in-time compiler as well as their thread and garbage collection implementation. Some aspects of the operating system used also play a role. As far as hardware is concerned, it measures the efficiency of the CPUs and caches, the memory subsystem and the scalability of shared memory systems (SMP). Disk and network I/O are irrelevant. SPECjbb2005 emulates a 3-tier client/server system that is typical for modern business process applications with the emphasis on the middle-tier system: Clients generate the load, consisting of driver threads, which on the basis of TPC-C benchmark generate OLTP accesses to a database without thinking times. The middle tier system implements the business processes and the updating of the database. The database takes on the data management and is emulated by Java objects that are in the memory. Transaction logging is implemented on an XML basis. The major advantage of this benchmark is that it includes all three tiers that run together on a single host. The performance of the middle-tier is measured. Large-scale hardware installations are thus avoided and direct comparisons between the SPECjbb2005 results from the various systems are possible. Client and database emulation are also written in Java. SPECjbb2005 only needs the operating system as well as a Java Virtual Machine with J2SE 5.0 features. The scaling unit is a warehouse with approx. 25 MB Java objects. Precisely one Java thread per warehouse executes the operations on these objects. The business operations are assumed by TPC-C: New Order Entry Payment Order Status Inquiry Delivery Stock Level Supervision Customer Report However, these are the only features SPECjbb2005 and TPC-C have in common. The results of the two benchmarks are not comparable. SPECjbb2005 has 2 performance metrics: bops (business operations per second) is the overall rate of all business operations performed per second. bops/j is the ratio of the first metrics and the number of active J instances. In comparisons of various SPECjbb2005 results, both metrics must be specified. The following rules, according to which a compliant benchmark run has to be performed, are the basis for these three metrics: A compliant benchmark run consists of a sequence of measuring points with an increasing number of warehouses (and thus of threads) with the number in each case being increased by one warehouse. The run is started at one warehouse up through 2*MaxWh, but not less than 8 warehouses. MaxWh is the number of warehouses with the highest rate per second the benchmark expects. Per default the benchmark equates MaxWh with the number of CPUs visible by the operating system. The metric bops is the arithmetic average of all measured operation rates with MaxWh warehouses up to 2*MaxWh warehouses. Page 16 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

17 Benchmark results Measurement 1: In March 2010 the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with two Xeon X5680 processors and a memory of 48 GB PC R DDR3-SDRAM was measured. The measurement was made under Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise. Six J9 instances from IBM were used. The following result was obtained: SPECjbb2005 bops = SPECjbb2005 bops/j = Measurement 2: In December 2010 the PRIMERGY TX300 S6 (electronically equivalent to the PRIMERGY RX300 S6) with two Xeon X5690 processors was measured. The configuration otherwise corresponded to the measurement of March The following result was obtained: SPECjbb2005 bops = SPECjbb2005 bops/j = The PRIMERGY TX300 S6 obtained the best result of all Intel Xeon 5600 series based servers SPECjbb2005 bops: PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. predecessor SPECjbb2005 bops: PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. predecessor PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X5690 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X5680 PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 x Xeon W warehouses PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 x Xeon W5590 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X x Xeon X The above comparison values for competitor products are dated 23rd February The comparison presented is based on SPECjbb2005 results for Intel Xeon 5600 series based servers. Current SPECjbb2005 results can be seen at Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 17 (60)

18 Benchmark environment Measurement 1: The SPECjbb2005 measurement was run on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with the following hardware and software configuration: Hardware Model CPU Number of chips Primary cache Secondary cache Other cache Memory Software PRIMERGY RX300 S6 Xeon X chips, 12 cores, 6 cores per chip 32 kb instruction + 32 kb data on chip, per core ¼ MB (I+D) on chip, per core 12 MB (I+D) on chip, per chip 12 4 GB PC R DDR3-SDRAM Operating System Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise J Version IBM J9 (build 2.4, JRE IBM J9 2.4 Windows Server 2008 amd64-64 jvmwa6460sr _42924 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled) Measurement 2: The SPECjbb2005 measurement was run on a PRIMERGY TX300 S6 with the following hardware and software configuration: Hardware Model CPU Number of chips Primary cache Secondary cache Other cache Memory Software PRIMERGY TX300 S6 Xeon X chips, 12 cores, 6 cores per chip 32 kb instruction + 32 kb data on chip, per core ¼ MB (I+D) on chip, per core 12 MB (I+D) on chip, per chip 12 4 GB PC R DDR3-SDRAM Operating System Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise J Version IBM J9 (build 2.4, JRE IBM J9 2.4 Windows Server 2008 amd64-64 jvmwa6460sr _42924 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled) The PRIMERGY TX300 S6 and the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 are electronically equivalent. Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. Page 18 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

19 SPECpower_ssj2008 Benchmark description SPECpower_ssj2008 is the first industry-standard SPEC benchmark that evaluates the power and performance characteristics of a server. With SPECpower_ssj2008 SPEC has defined standards for server power measurements in the same way they have done for performance. The benchmark workload represents typical server-side Java business applications. The workload is scalable, multi-threaded, portable across a wide range of platforms and easy to run. The benchmark tests CPUs, caches, the memory hierarchy and scalability of symmetric multiprocessor systems (SMPs), as well as the implementation of Java Virtual Machine (J), Just In Time (JIT) compilers, garbage collection, threads and some aspects of the operating system. SPECpower_ssj2008 reports power consumption for servers at different performance levels from 100% to active idle in 10% segments over a set period of time. The graduated workload recognizes the fact that processing loads and power consumption on servers vary substantially over the course of days or weeks. To compute a power-performance metric across all levels, measured transaction throughputs for each segment are added together and then divided by the sum of the average power consumed for each segment. The result is a figure of merit called overall ssj_ops/watt. This ratio provides information about the energy efficiency of the measured server. The defined measurement standard enables customers to compare it with other configurations and servers measured with SPECpower_ssj2008. The diagram shows a typical graph of a SPECpower_ssj2008 result. The benchmark runs on a wide variety of operating systems and hardware architectures and does not require extensive client or storage infrastructure. The minimum equipment for SPEC-compliant testing is two networked computers, plus a power analyzer and a temperature sensor. One computer is the System Under Test (SUT) which runs one of the supported operating systems and the J. The J provides the environment required to run the SPECpower_ssj2008 workload which is implemented in Java. The other computer is a Control & Collection System (CCS) which controls the operation of the benchmark and captures the power, performance and temperature readings for reporting. The diagram provides an overview of the basic structure of the benchmark configuration and the various components. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 19 (60)

20 Benchmark results In January 2011 the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 was measured with two Xeon X5675 processors and 12 GB of PC3L-10600E DDR3-SDRAM memory. The measurement was taken under Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise and a J9 2.4 by IBM was used. The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 achieved with the Xeon X5675 processors a result of 2,912 overall ssj_ops/watt. The diagram shows the result of the configuration described above, measured with the PRIMERGY RX300 S6. The red horizontal bars show the performance to power ratio in ssj_ops/watt (upper x-axis) for each target load level tagged on the y-axis of the diagram. The blue line shows the run of the curve for the average power consumption (bottom x-axis) at each target load level marked with a small rhomb. The black vertical line shows the benchmark result of 2,912 overall ssj_ops/watt for the PRIMERGY RX300 S6. This is the quotient of the sum of the transaction throughputs for each load level and the sum of the average power consumed for each measurement level. The following table shows the detailed information for the throughput in ssj_ops, the average power consumption in watts and the resulting energy efficiency for each load level of the measured result. Performance Power Energy Efficiency Target Load ssj_ops Average Power (W) ssj_ops/watt 100% 933, ,878 90% 839, ,787 80% 749, ,749 70% 653, ,595 60% 559, ,351 50% 469, ,024 40% 373, ,588 30% 280, ,082 20% 186, ,487 10% 93, Active Idle ssj_ops / power = 2,912 The configuration was tuned to get the best possible result for this server in terms of performance per watt. The memory configuration with 6 2 GB was selected to meet the criteria of best performance at lowest power consumption by populating only one slot of each available memory channel with Low Voltage DIMMs. This configuration enables the benchmark to use the full potential of the available memory bandwidth and at the same time consumes less power than a 2 or 3 DIMMs/channel configuration. However, the most Page 20 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

21 important factor in the hardware configuration is the correct choice of the processor. Processors are the part of a server which consumes the most power besides the memory subsystem. For the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 the hexa-core Xeon X5675 processors with Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 95 watts showed the best efficiency score. The following diagrams show for each load level the power consumption (on the right y-axis) and the throughput (on the left y-axis) of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with the Intel Xeon X5675 processors compared with Intel Xeon X5670 processors, which were already measured in March It can be seen that the new Intel Xeon X5675 processors have a somewhat lower power consumption, despite the same TDP of 95 watts. At the same time, the Xeon X5675 processors have in comparison to the Xeon X5670 processors a higher throughput, which results from the higher clock frequency. Both result in an overall increase in energy efficiency in the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 of 3.2%. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 21 (60)

22 Benchmark environment The SPECpower_ssj2008 measurement presented here was performed on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with the following hardware and software configuration using the Yokogawa WT210 power analyzer: Hardware Model PRIMERGY RX300 S6 Processor (TDP) Xeon X5675 (95 W) Number of chips Primary Cache 2 chips, 6 cores per chip, 2 threads per core 32 KB instruction + 32 KB data on chip, per core Secondary Cache 256 KB (I+D) on chip, per core Tertiary Cache Memory Network Interface Disk Subsystem 12 MB (I+D) on chip, per chip 6 2 GB PC3L-10600E DDR3-SDRAM 2 1 GBit LAN Intel 82575EB Gigabit Network Connection (onboard) 1 Integrated SATA controller SATA SSD, 32 GB, JBOD Power Supply Unit W Fujitsu Technology Solutions S26113-F556-E10 Software Operating System Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise J Version J affinity J options IBM J9 (build 2.4, JRE IBM J9 2.4 Windows Server 2008 amd64-64 jvmwa6460sr _42924 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled) start /affinity [0xF,0xF0,0xF00,0xF000,0xF0000,0xF00000] -Xaggressive -Xcompressedrefs -Xgcpolicy:gencon -Xmn1300m -Xms1500m -Xmx1500m -XlockReservation -Xnoloa -XtlhPrefetch -Xlp Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions. Page 22 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

23 6 Cores, HT, TM 5600 Series 4 Cores, HT, TM 4 Cores 5500 WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: OLTP-2 Benchmark description OLTP stands for Online Transaction Processing. The OLTP-2 benchmark is based on the typical application scenario of a database solution. In OLTP-2 database access is simulated and the number of transactions achieved per second (tps) determined as the unit of measurement for the system. In contrast to benchmarks such as SPECint and TPC-E, which were standardized by independent bodies and for which adherence to the respective rules and regulations are monitored, OLTP-2 is an internal benchmark of Fujitsu. OLTP-2 is based on the well-known database benchmark TPC-E. OLTP-2 was designed in such a way that a wide range of configurations can be measured to present the scaling of a system with regard to the CPU and memory configuration. Even if the two benchmarks OLTP-2 and TPC-E simulate similar application scenarios using the same load profiles, the results cannot be compared or even treated as equal, as the two benchmarks use different methods to simulate user load. OLTP-2 values are typically similar to TPC-E values. A direct comparison, or even referring to the OLTP-2 result as TPC-E, is not permitted, especially because there is no priceperformance calculation. Further information can be found in the document Benchmark Overview OLTP-2. Benchmark results The OLTP-2 values for the Intel Xeon 55xx and 56xx processor series were determined by way of example on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with memory configurations of 48 GB, 72 GB, 96 GB, 144 GB and 192 GB. The following table gives you an overview of the processors considered and their properties: Processor #Cores/ Chip L3 Cache Processor Frequency QPI Speed HT TM TDP E MB 2.00 GHz 4.8 GT/s W E MB 2.13 GHz 4.8 GT/s W E MB 2.27 GHz 4.8 GT/s W E MB 1.60 GHz 4.8 GT/s W E MB 2.13 GHz 4.8 GT/s W E MB 2.27 GHz 4.8 GT/s W L MB 1.87 GHz 4.8 GT/s W L MB 2.13 GHz 5.86 GT/s 40 W E MB 2.40 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W E MB 2.53 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W E MB 2.67 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W X MB 2.93 GHz 5.86 GT/s 130 W X MB 3.07 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.20 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.46 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W X MB 3.60 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W L MB 2.27 GHz 5.86 GT/s 60 W E MB 2.40 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W E MB 2.53 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W X MB 2.67 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 2.80 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 2.93 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.06 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.33 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W X MB 3.46 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W QPI = Quick Path Interconnect, GT = Gigatransfer, HT = Hyper-Threading, TM = Turbo Mode, TDP = Thermal Design Power Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 23 (60)

24 6 Cores, HT, TM 5600 Series 4 Cores, HT, TM 4 Cores 5500 WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Database performance greatly depends on the configuration options with CPU, memory and on the connectivity of an adequate disk subsystem for the database. The configuration options of the systems that support the Intel Xeon processors of the 55xx und 56xx series vary, as can be seen in the following table. Processor TX200 S6 TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 BX620 S6 BX920 S2 BX922 S2 BX924 S2 E5503 E5506 E5507 E5603 E5606 E5607 L5609 L5630 E5620 E5630 E5640 X5647 X5667 X5672 X5677 X5687 L5640 E5645 E5649 X5650 X5660 X5670 X5675 X5680 X5690 Max. Memory TX200 S6 TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 BX620 S6 BX920 S2 BX922 S2 BX924 S2 1 CPU 48 GB 96 GB 96 GB 96 GB 96 GB 96 GB 96 GB 2 CPUs 96 GB 192 GB 192 GB 192 GB 192 GB 144 GB 192 GB 96 GB 144 GB *) 192 GB 288 GB *) *) Special release for 16 GB dual-rank memory modules Page 24 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

25 In the following scaling considerations for CPU and memory we assume that the disk subsystem has been adequately chosen and is not a bottleneck. The OLTP-2 values determined are based on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6, the operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise and the database SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition. Further information about the system configuration can be found in the section Benchmark environment. A guideline in the database environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more important than the speed of the memory accesses. For this reason the maximum configuration with 16 GB modules, the maximum configuration with 8 GB modules and a reduced configuration with 8 GB modules were considered in the measurements. The timing depends on both the processor type and on the type and number of memory modules used. Further information about memory performance can be found in the White Paper Memory performance of Xeon 5600 (Westmere-EP)-based systems. The following diagram shows the OLTP-2 transaction rates that can be achieved with one and two processors of the Intel Xeon 5600 and 5500 series and various memory configurations. It is evident that a wide performance range is covered by the variety of released processors. If you compare the OLTP-2 value of the processor with the lowest performance (Xeon E5503) at maximum memory configuration and the processor with the highest performance (Xeon X5690), the result is a 5.4-fold increase in performance. Based on the results achieved the processors can be divided into different performance groups: The Xeon E5503 as the processor with two cores only makes the start. The next performance group of processors achieves a performance that is almost twice as high in the OLTP- 2 scenario. These are the processors with four cores without Hyper-Threading (Xeon E5506, Xeon E5507, Xeon E5603, Xeon E5606, Xeon E5607 and Xeon L5609). Under the OLTP-2 load, doubling the number of cores almost results in twice the performance. A further increase in performance is achieved by the processors with four cores, which support both Hyper- Threading and the turbo mode. (Xeon L5630, Xeon E5620, Xeon E5630, Xeon E5640 and Xeon X5647). Doubling the logical processor cores through Hyper-Threading in particular leads to better results under the OLTP-2 load. In comparison with the previously mentioned processors, the 4-core processors Xeon X5667, Xeon X5672, Xeon X5677 and Xeon X5687 also have Hyper-Threading and turbo mode, but there are more possible turbo-mode levels and also a higher QPI speed, 6.4 GT/s compared with 5.86 GT/s. This enables them to almost achieve the throughputs of the 6-core processors (Xeon E5649 and Xeon E5645) with lower clock frequency, fewer turbo-mode levels and a lower QPI speed. At the upper end of the performance scale are the 6-core processors Xeon X5650, Xeon X5660, Xeon X5670, Xeon X5675, Xeon X5680 and Xeon X5690, which also have a QPI speed of 6.4 GT/s. In almost all these series of measurements with two CPUs from the upper end of the performance range it can be seen that under the OLTP-2 load a configuration with memory of 96 GB (12 8 GB DIMMs) and the resulting memory access of 1333 MHz was more favorable than a configuration with 144 GB (18 8 GB DIMMs) with memory access of only 800 MHz. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 25 (60)

26 OLTP-2 tps 2CPUs-192GB 2CPUs-144GB 2CPUs-96GB 1CPU-96GB 1CPU-72GB 1CPU-48GB X5690-6Core X5680-6Core X5675-6Core X5670-6Core X5660-6Core X5650-6Core E5649-6Core E5645-6Core L5640-6Core X5687-4Core X5677-4Core X5672-4Core X5667-4Core X5647-4Core E5640-4Core E5630-4Core E5620-4Core L5630-4Core L5609-4Core E5607-4Core E5606-4Core E5603-4Core E5507-4Core E5506-4Core E5503-2Core tps Page 26 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

27 If you compare the maximum achievable OLTP-2 values of the current system generation with the values that were achieved on the predecessor systems, the result is an increase of about 50%. tps X GB RAM 2 W GB RAM Predecessor System Maximum OLTP-2 tps Comparison of system generations + ~ 50% 2 X GB RAM 2 X GB RAM Current System Current System TX200 S6 TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 BX620 S6 BX920 S2 BX922 S2 BX924 S2 Predecessor System TX200 S5 TX300 S5 RX200 S5 RX300 S5 BX620 S5 BX920 S1 - - Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 27 (60)

28 Benchmark environment A typical OLTP-2 benchmark environment is shown symbolically in the following diagram: Driver Tier A Tier B Network Network Storage Subsystem Application Server Database Server Clients System under Test (SUT) All the OLTP-2 values for the Intel Xeon 55xx and 56xx processor series were determined by way of example on a PRIMERGY RX300 S6. Database Server (Tier B) Hardware System Processor Memory Settings (default) Network interface Disk subsystem Software Operating system Database PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 Xeon E5503 (2C, 2.00 GHz) 2 Xeon E5506 (4C, 2.13 GHz) 2 Xeon E5507 (4C, 2.27 GHz) 2 Xeon E5603 (4C, 1.60 GHz) 2 Xeon E5606 (4C, 2.13 GHz) 2 Xeon E5607 (4C, 2.27 GHz) 2 Xeon L5609 (4C, 1.87 GHz) 2 Xeon L5630 (4C, 2.13 GHz) 2 Xeon E5620 (4C, 2.40 GHz) 2 Xeon E5630 (4C, 2.53 GHz) 2 Xeon E5640 (4C, 2.67 GHz) 2 Xeon X5647 (4C, 2.93 GHz) 2 Xeon X5667 (4C, 3.07 GHz) 2 Xeon X5672 (4C, 3.20 GHz) 2 Xeon X5677 (4C, 3.46 GHz) 2 Xeon X5687 (4C, 3.60 GHz) 2 Xeon L5640 (6C, 2.27 GHz) 2 Xeon E5645 (6C, 2.40 GHz) 2 Xeon E5649 (6C, 2.53 GHz) 2 Xeon X5650 (6C, 2.67 GHz) 2 Xeon X5660 (6C, 2.80 GHz) 2 Xeon X5670 (6C, 2.93 GHz) 2 Xeon X5675 (6C, 3.06 GHz) 2 Xeon X5680 (6C, 3.33 GHz) 2 Xeon X5690 (6C, 3.46 GHz) 48 GB 192 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 (8 GB DIMMs), or 1066 MHz registered ECC DDR3 (16 GB DIMMs) Turbo Mode enabled, NUMA Support enabled, Hyper-Threading enabled 2 onboard LAN 1 Gb/s RX300 S6: Onboard RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 5/6 512MB 2 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive, RAID1 (OS), GB 15k rpm SAS Drive, RAID10 (LOG) 5 LSI MegaRAID SAS e 5 JX40: GB SSD Drive each, RAID5 (data) Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Page 28 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

29 Application Server (Tier A) Hardware System Processor Memory Network interface Disk subsystem Software Operating system Clients PRIMERGY RX200 S6 1 Xeon E5640 (6C, 2.66 GHz) 12 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 2 onboard LAN 1 Gb/s, 2 Dual Port LAN 1Gb/s 1 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard Hardware System PRIMERGY RX200 S5 Processor 2 Xeon X5570 (4C, 2.93 GHz) Memory 24 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 Network interface 2 onboard LAN 1 Gb/s Disk subsystem 1 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive Software Operating system Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard OLTP-2 software EGen version Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 29 (60)

30 TPC-E with TPC-Energy Benchmark description The TPC-E benchmark measures the performance of online transaction processing systems (OLTP) and is based on a complex database and a number of different transaction types that are carried out on it. TPC-E is not only a hardware-independent but also a software-independent benchmark and can thus be run on every test platform, i.e. proprietary or open. In addition to the results of the measurement, all the details of the systems measured and the measuring method must also be explained in a measurement report (Full Disclosure Report or FDR). Consequently, this ensures that the measurement meets all benchmark requirements and is reproducible. TPC-E does not just measure an individual server, but a rather extensive system configuration. Keys to performance in this respect are the database server, disk I/O and network communication. The performance metric is tpse, where tps means transactions per second. tpse is the average number of Trade-Result-Transactions that are performed within a second. The TPC-E standard defines a result as the tpse rate, the price per performance value (e.g. $/tpse) and the availability date of the measured configuration. TPC-Energy is an augmentation to the existing TPC benchmarks (e.g. TPC-C, TPC-E, TPC-H). Energy consumption of the systems is measured while the TPC benchmark is performed. For this TPC has defined a set of rules on how to measure these values. As the result of this benchmark a metric in the form of "Energy / Performance" is calculated from the measured values. The result for TPC-E is the metric Watts/tpsE. Further information about TPC-E and TPC-Energy can be found in the overview document Benchmark Overview TPC-E. Benchmark results In November 2010 Fujitsu submitted a TPC-E benchmark result for the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with the 6- core processor Intel Xeon X5680 and 96 GB memory. In February 2011 Fujitsu published a further TPC-E benchmark result with the 6-core processor Intel Xeon X5690 and a memory of 96 GB, which again surpassed the values achieved in November. This publication also revealed TPC-Energy values for the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 for the first time. The results show an enormous increase in performance compared with the PRIMERGY RX300 S5 with a simultaneous reduction in costs and, in comparison with the competitors, lower energy consumption. Page 30 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

31 TPC-E Result of November 2010: TPC-E Throughput tpse Operating System Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition Price/Performance $ USD per tpse PRIMERGY RX300 S6 Availability Date November 1, 2010 Database Server Configuration Database Manager Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition SUT Processors/Cores/Threads 2/12/24 Tier A PRIMERGY RX200 S6 1x Intel Xeon E GHz 6 GB Memory 1x 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive 2x onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 1x Dual Port LAN 1 Gb/s TPC-E TPC Pricing Report Date November 29, 2010 Total System Cost $ 238,604 Memory 96 GB Tier B PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2x Intel Xeon X GHz 96 GB Memory 2x 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives 4x 146 GB 10k rpm SAS Drives 2x onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 1x onboard SAS RAID Controller 5x SAS RAID Controller Storage 1x PRIMECENTER Rack 5x ETERNUS JX40 120x 64 GB SSD Drives 1x FibreCAT SX40 3x 750 GB 7.2k rpm SATA Drives Initial Database Size 5124 GB Redundancy Level 1 RAID-5 data and RAID-10 log Storage 120 x 64 GB SSD 3 x 750 GB 7.2k rpm HDD 4 x 146 GB 10k rpm HDD Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 31 (60)

32 TPC-E and TPC-Energy Results of February 2011: TPC-E Throughput tpse Operating System Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition Price/Performance $ USD per tpse PRIMERGY RX300 S6 12x2.5 Availability Date March 1, 2011 Database Server Configuration Database Manager Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition SUT Total System Cost $ 233,281 Processors/Cores/Threads 2/12/24 Tier A PRIMERGY RX200 S6 1x Intel Xeon E GHz 6 GB Memory 1x 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive 2x onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 1x Dual Port LAN 1 Gb/s TPC-E TPC Pricing TPC-Energy Report Date February 14, 2011 TPC-Energy Metric 0.93 Watts/tpsE Memory 96 GB Tier B PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2x Intel Xeon X GHz 96 GB Memory 2x 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives 4x 146 GB 10k rpm SAS Drives 4x 500 GB 7.2k rpm SATA Drives 2x onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 1x onboard SAS RAID Controller 5x SAS RAID Controller Storage 1x PRIMECENTER Rack 5x ETERNUS JX40 120x 64 GB SSD Drives Initial Database Size 5,124 GB Redundancy Level 1 RAID-5 data and RAID-10 log Storage 120 x 64 GB SSD 4 x 500 GB 7.2k rpm HDD 4 x 146 GB 10k rpm HDD Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions. Page 32 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

33 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 12x2.5 TPC-E Throughput tpse Operating System Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition Price/Performance $ USD per tpse Energy Summary Availability Date March 1, 2011 Database Server Configuration Database Manager Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition Total System Cost $ 233,281 Processors/Cores/Threads 2/12/24 TPC-E TPC Pricing TPC-Energy Report Date February 14, 2011 Availability Date March 1, 2011 TPC-Energy Metric 0.93 Watts/tpsE Memory 96 GB Numerical Quantities For Reported Energy Configuration: REC Idle Power: Average Power of REC : Watts 1, Watts Subsystem Reporting: Secondary Metrics Additional Numerical Quantities watts/tpse Full Load Avg Watts Full Load % of REC Idle Avg Watts Idle % of REC Database Server % % Storage % % Application Server % % Miscellaneous % % Total REC % % Lowest ambient temperature at air inlet: Degrees Celsius Items in Priced Configuration not in the Reported Energy Configuration None Items in the Reported Energy Configuration not in the Measured Energy Configuration Fujitsu Display A19-5 ECO Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 33 (60)

34 better better WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: In February 2011, Fujitsu is represented with eight PRIMERGY results in the TPC-E list. System and Processors Throughput Price / Performance Watts/tpsE Availability Date TX300 S4 with 2 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - August 30, 2008 RX600 S4 with 4 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - January 1, 2009 RX600 S4 with 4 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - January 1, 2009 RX300 S5 with 2 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - April 1, 2009 RX600 S5 with 4 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - September 1, 2010 RX900 S1 with 8 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - October 1, 2010 RX300 S6 with 2 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse - November 1, 2010 RX300 S6 with 2 Xeon X tpse $ per tpse 0.93 March 1, 2011 See the TPC web site for more information and all the TPC-E results ( The following diagram for 2-socket, 4-socket and 8-socket PRIMERGY systems with different processor types shows the good performance of the 2-socket system PRIMERGY RX300 S6. tpse $/tpse tpse $/tpse 3, , , , PRIMERGY TX300 S4 2 Xeon X GB RAM PRIMERGY RX600 S4 4 Xeon X GB RAM PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 Xeon X GB RAM PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 Xeon X GB RAM PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 Xeon X GB RAM PRIMERGY PRIMERGY RX600 S5 RX900 S1 4 Xeon 8 Xeon X7560 X GB RAM 1024 GB RAM In comparison with the PRIMERGY TX300 S4 the increase in performance is +300% and in comparison with the PRIMERGY RX300 S5 +59%. The price per performance of $183.94/tpsE is the best ratio of all submitted TPC-E results. Compared with the PRIMERGY TX300 S4 the costs are reduced to 35% and with the PRIMERGY RX300 S5 to 53%. Page 34 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

35 better better WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: The following diagram shows the best TPC-E results (as of March 1st, 2011) and the corresponding price per performance ratios for configurations using two processors. PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is best in class with the highest performance value. Regarding all TPC-E submissions at this time, the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 achieved the best price per performance value. tpse $/tpse tpse $/tpse Fujitsu 1) PRIMERGY RX300 S6 Fujitsu 2) PRIMERGY RX300 S6 HP 3) ProLiant DL380G7 Dell 4) PowerEdge T710 HP 5) ProLiant DL385G7 IBM 6) System X3650 M2 Fujitsu 7) PRIMERGY RX300 S5 See the TPC web site for more information and all the TPC-E results ( 1) Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S tpse, $183.94/tpsE, 0.93 Watts/tpsE, availability date 03/01/2011 2) Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S tpse, $191.48/tpsE, availability date 11/01/2010 3) HP ProLiant DL380G tpse, $294.00/tpsE, availability date 5/11/2010 4) Dell PowerEdge T tpse, $264.32/tpsE, availability date 6/21/2010 5) HP ProLiant DL385G tpse, $296.00/tpsE, availability date 04/08/2010 6) IBM System X3650 M tpse, $319.15/tpsE, availability date 07/14/2009 7) Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S tpse, $343.91/tpsE, availability date 03/30/2009 Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 35 (60)

36 better WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: The performance of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is also excellent as far as the energy consumption values are concerned and is well ahead of the two previously published results of its competitors. [Watts/tpsE] 8 TPC-E TPC-Energy: Primery Metric Fujitsu 1) PRIMERGY RX300 S6 HP 2) ProLiant DL580 G7 HP 3) ProLiant DL585 G7 See the TPC web site for more information as well as the TPC-E and TPC-Energy results ( 1) Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S tpse, $183.94/tpsE, 0.93 Watts/tpsE, availability date 03/01/2011 2) HP ProLiant DL580 G tpse, $347.00/tpsE, 5.84 Watts/tpsE, availability date 06/21/2010 3) HP ProLiant DL585 G tpse, $330.00/tpsE, 6.72 Watts/tpsE, availability date 06/21/2010 Page 36 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

37 SAP SD Benchmark description The SAP application software consists of modules used to manage all standard business processes. These include modules for ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), such as Assemble-to-Order (ATO), Financial Accounting (FI), Human Resources (HR), Materials Management (MM), Production Planning (PP) plus Sales and Distribution (SD), as well as modules for SCM (Supply Chain Management), Retail, Banking, Utilities, BI (Business Intelligence), CRM (Customer Relation Management) or PLM (Product Lifecycle Management). The application software is always based on a database so that a SAP configuration consists of the hardware, the software components operating system, zhe database and the SAP software itself. SAP AG has developed SAP Standard Application Benchmarks in order to verify the performance, stability and scaling of a SAP application system. The benchmarks, of which SD Benchmark is the most commonly used and most important, analyze the performance of the entire system and thus measure the quality of the integrated individual components. The benchmark differentiates between a 2-tier and a 3-tier configuration. The 2-tier configuration has the SAP application and database installed on one server. With a 3-tier configuration the individual components of the SAP application can be distributed via several servers and an additional server handles the database. The entire specification of the benchmark developed by SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany can be found at: Benchmark results The certification number from SAP specifies that the PRIMERGY RX300 S6, equipped with 2 Xeon X5680 processors, achieved the following result with SAP Enhancement Package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 and SQL Server 2008 under Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition on 10th February 2010: Certification number Number of SAP SD benchmark users 4,860 Average dialog response time Throughput Fully processed order line items/hour dialog steps/hour SAPS 0.99 seconds 530,670 1,592,000 26,530 Average database request time (dialog/update) sec / sec CPU utilization of central server 99% Operating system, central server RDBMS SQL Server 2008 Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition SAP Business Suite software SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 Configuration Central server PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 processors / 12 cores / 24 threads Xeon X GB main memory Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 37 (60)

38 The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 obtained the best 2 processor, two-tier SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark result on SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 (as of March 16, 2010). 4 Two-Tier SAP SD results on SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 for 2 processor servers: PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. next best 2-socket server Fujitsu PRIMERGY TX300 S6 / RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X processors/12 cores/24 threads 88 GB RAM Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SQL Server 2008 SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 Certification number: Sun Fire X x Xeon X processors/8 cores/16 threads 48 GB RAM Solaris 10 Oracle 10g SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 (Unicode) Certification number: Number of Benchmark Users The following diagram illustrates the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 in comparison to its predecessor, the PRIMERGY RX300 S5, in the respective most performant configuration. Two-Tier SAP SD results on SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 for 2 processor servers: PRIMERGY RX300 S6 vs. predecessor Fujitsu PRIMERGY TX300 S6 / RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X processors/12 cores/24 threads 88 GB RAM Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SQL Server 2008 SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 Certification number: Fujitsu PRIMERGY TX300 S5 / RX300 S5 2 x Xeon X processors/8 cores/16 threads 48 GB RAM Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition SQL Server 2008 SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 (Unicode) Certification number: Number of Benchmark Users 4 Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published as of March 16, The comparison presented above is based on the best performing 2-socket servers currently shipping by Sun and Fujitsu. The latest SAP SD 2-tier results can be found at Page 38 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

39 Benchmark environment 2-tier environment Load generator System Under Test System Under Test (SUT) Hardware Server Processor Memory Disk subsystem Software Operating system Database PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 x Xeon X x 8 GB PC R DDR3-SDRAM 2 x 4 GB PC R DDR3-SDRAM 1 x PRIMERGY RX300 S6: 1 x RAID 5/6 SAS based on LSI MegaRAID 512MB 1 x RAID Contr BBU Upgrade for RAID 5/6 V16 2 x SSD SATA 3G 64GB SLC HOT PLUG 2.5" EP 1 x RAID Ctrl SAS 8Port 512M with BBU LP LSI 2 x FibreCAT SX40 14 x HD SAS 3G 73GB 15K HOT PLUG 2.5" EP Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SQL Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SAP Business Suite software SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 Load generator Hardware Model Processor Memory Software Operating system PRIMERGY RX600 4 x Xeon MP, 2.50 GHz, 1 MB L3 cache 8 GB PC2100 DDR-SDRAM SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 SP1 Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 39 (60)

40 vservcon Benchmark description vservcon is a benchmark used by Fujitsu Technology Solutions to compare server configurations with hypervisor with regard to their suitability for server consolidation. This allows both the comparison of systems, processors and I/O technologies as well as the comparison of hypervisors, virtualization forms and additional drivers for virtual machines. vservcon is not a new benchmark in the true sense of the word. It is more a framework that combines already established benchmarks (or in modified form) as workloads in order to reproduce the load of a consolidated and virtualized server environment. Three proven benchmarks are used which cover the application scenarios database, application server and web server. Application scenario Benchmark No. of logical CPU cores Memory Database Sysbench (adapted) GB Java application server SPECjbb (adapted, with 50% - 60% load) 2 2 GB Web server WebBench GB Each of the three application scenarios is allocated to a dedicated virtual machine (). Add to these a fourth machine, the so-called idle. These four s make up a "tile". Depending on the performance capability of the underlying server hardware, you may as part of a measurement also have to start several identical tiles in parallel in order to achieve a maximum performance score. System Under Test Database Java Web Idle Tile n Database Database Database Java Java Java Web Web Web Idle Idle Idle Tile 3 Tile 2 Tile 1 Each of the three vservcon application scenarios provides a specific benchmark result in the form of application-specific transaction rates for the respective. In order to derive a normalized score, the individual benchmark results for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. The resulting relative performance values are then suitably weighted and finally added up for all s and tiles. The outcome is a score for this tile number. Starting as a rule with one tile, this procedure is performed for an increasing number of tiles until no further significant increase in this vservcon score occurs. The final vservcon score is then the maximum of the vservcon scores for all tile numbers. This score thus reflects the maximum total throughput that can be achieved by running the mix defined in vservcon that consists of numerous s up to the possible full utilization of CPU resources. This is why the measurement environment for vservcon measurements is designed in such a way that only the CPU is the limiting factor and that no limitations occur as a result of other resources. The progression of the vservcon scores for the tile numbers provides useful information about the scaling behavior of the "System under Test". Moreover, vservcon also documents the total CPU load of the host (s and all other CPU activities) and, if possible, electrical power consumption. A detailed description of vservcon is in the document: Benchmark Overview vservcon. Page 40 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

41 6 Cores, HT, TM 5600 Series 4 Cores, HT, TM 4 C WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Benchmark results The current generation of PRIMERGY dual-socket systems is based on Intel Xeon series 5600 (or 5500) processors. The configuration options of these systems vary, as can be seen in the following table. Processor TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 BX620 S6 BX920 S2 BX922 S2 BX924 S E5507 E5607 L5609 L5630 E5620 E5630 E5640 X5647 X5667 X5672 X5677 X5687 L5640 E5645 E5649 X5650 X5660 X5670 X5675 X5680 X5690 HT = Hyper-Threading, TM = Turbo Mode The current generation of PRIMERGY dual-socket systems is very suitable for application virtualization thanks to the progress made in processor technology. Compared with a system based on the previous processor generation an approximate 50% higher virtualization performance can be achieved (measured in vservcon score) as 6-Core processors are also available. On the basis of the previously described vservcon profile almost optimal utilization of the CPU system resources is possible with 27 real application s (equivalent to nine tiles) if the system is fully assembled with two such processors. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 41 (60)

42 E5507 L5609 E5607 L5630 E5620 E5630 E5640 X5647 X5667 X5672 X5677 X5687 L5640 E5645 E5649 X5650 X5660 X5670 X5675 X5680 X5690 Final vservcon Score WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: The first diagram compares the virtualization performance values that can be achieved with the individual processors. A large selection of released system processors with four or six cores was considered #Tiles Cores / 4 Threads 4 Cores / 8 Threads 6 Cores / 12 Threads The relatively large performance differences between the processors as seen in the diagram can be explained by their features. The processors in the group on the left are entry-models. When moving to the middle group, Hyper-Threading and turbo mode play a role, hence the increase in performance to be observed here is large. And with the processors of the middle and right-hand groups there are in each case incremental increases in the processor-related memory clock rate between the individual processors. Furthermore, various combinations of processor-related memory clock rate and the data transfer rate between processors ("QPI Speed") determine performance. The right-hand group consists of the six-core processors, which - as expected - have almost 50% more performance than the corresponding four-core versions - otherwise with the same features. In the group on the right the jump from E5649 to X5650 is particularly pronounced, because the category of Advanced processors with maximum QPI speed and a more powerful turbo mode begins with the X5650. More information about the topic "Memory Performance" and QPI architecture can be found in the White Paper Memory performance of XEON 5600 (Westmere-EP)-based systems. A guideline in the virtualization environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more important than the speed of the memory accesses. The technical data of the processors is set out again clearly and concisely in the table below. Page 42 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

43 vservcon Score CPU utilization 6 Cores, HT, TM 5600 Series 4 Cores, HT, TM 4 C WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Processor #Cores/ Chip L3 Cache Prozessorfrequenz QPI Speed HT TM TDP #Tiles Score 5500 E MB 2.27 GHz 4.8 GT/s W E MB 2.27 GHz 4.8 GT/s W L MB 1.87 GHz 4.8 GT/s W L MB 2.13 GHz 5.86 GT/s 40 W E MB 2.40 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W E MB 2.53 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W E MB 2.67 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W X MB 2.93 GHz 5.86 GT/s 130 W X MB 3.07 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.20 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.46 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W X MB 3.60 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W L MB 2.27 GHz 5.86 GT/s 60 W E MB 2.40 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W E MB 2.53 GHz 5.86 GT/s 80 W X MB 2.67 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 2.80 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 2.93 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.06 GHz 6.4 GT/s 95 W X MB 3.33 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W X MB 3.46 GHz 6.4 GT/s 130 W QPI = QuickPath Interconnect, GT = Gigatransfer, HT = Hyper-Threading, TM = Turbo Mode, TDP = Thermal Design Power The next diagram illustrates the virtualization performance for increasing numbers of s based on the Xeon E5620 (4-core) and E5649 (6-core) processors. The respective CPU loads of the host have also been entered. The number of tiles with optimal CPU load is typically at E5620 E5649 about 90%; beyond that you have 8 100% overload, which is where virtualization performance no longer 7 90% 80% increases, or sinks again. In addition to the increased number of physical cores, Hyper-Threading is an additional reason for the high number of s that can be operated. As is known, a physical processor core is consequently divided into two logical cores so that the number of cores available for the hypervisor is doubled. This standard feature thus generally increases the virtualization performance of a system vservcon Score (left axis) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% # Tiles CPU utilization of host (right axis) The scaling curves for the number of tiles as seen in the previous diagram are specifically for systems with Hyper-Threading. 12 physical and thus 24 logical cores are available with the Xeon E5649 processor; approximately four of them are used per tile (see Benchmark description). This means that a parallel use of the same physical cores by several s is avoided up to a maximum of about three tiles. That is why the performance curve in this range scales almost ideal. For the quantities above the growth is flatter up to CPU full utilization. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 43 (60)

44 Power Score [1/kW] vservcon Score E5507 L5609 E5607 L5630 E5620 E5630 E5640 X5647 X5667 X5672 X5677 X5687 L5640 E5645 E5649 X5650 X5660 X5670 X5675 X5680 X5690 Power Score Final vservcon Score WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Saving electrical energy is an important aspect of server consolidation. In order to express the virtualization performance in relation to electrical power consumption, vservcon uses the power score which is calculated as the ratio of the vservcon score to power consumption in kw. The following diagram shows the system-specific power scores of the processors for the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 that were selected at the start of this section Power Score (left axis) Final vservcon Score (right axis) Cores / 4 Threads 4 Cores / 8 Threads 6 Cores / 12 Threads The pure performance values from the start of the section (final vservcon scores) are again entered in this diagram ( Power scores ). Considered together, there are two important pieces of information in both series of data: Both in pure performance as well as in performance per Watt the 6-core processors achieve the highest values. This is thus the best selection with the appropriate number of s. Relatively clear differences in the pure virtualization performance can be seen in each of the three groups. However, if you consider the virtualization performance per Watt, almost all the processors within the respective group are at approximately the same level. The next diagram looks at the energy efficiency of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 depending on the degree of utilization based on the example of two selected processors. For example, with the Xeon E5649 processor the virtualization performance can be increased by 100% just by doubling the number of real application s from three to six (from one to two tiles) while simultaneously the electrical power consumption only increases by approximately 10%. This comparison impressively illustrates that energy efficiency clearly increases as the system utilization increases. The adjacent diagram shows this in detail based on the power scores for the two processors previously considered. It also can be seen that within the scope of measuring accuracy the power score remains approximately constant beyond about 90% of the maximum virtualization performance (final vservcon score) E5620 E Power Score (left axis) vservcon Score (right axis) # Tiles Page 44 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

45 vservcon Score Relative performance compared with RefSys WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Previously, the virtualization performance of the system was analyzed as a whole. Below, performance is also to be discussed from the viewpoint of an individual application in the described virtualized environment. The following uses the system with the Xeon E5649 processor as an example. If the number of application s is optimal as far as the overall performance is concerned, the performance of an individual is already notably lower than in operational low-load situations. The next diagram illustrates this via the relative performance in relation to the reference system with one individual application of each of the three types for increasing numbers. The first column of a group views one in the array of a total of three application s (1 tile), the second one is for the array of 6 application s (2 tiles), etc. The values are presented - both individually and in total for all s of the respective type - through the height of the stacked columns. Relative performance of single for increasing tile count th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 8 7 Java Web DB #Tiles With regard to the numbers on a virtualization host it is necessary in a specific case to weigh up the performance requirements of an individual application against the overall requirements. At the beginning we looked at the virtualization performance of a fully configured system. However, with a server with two sockets the question also arises as to how good performance scaling is from one to two processors. The better the scaling, the lower the overhead usually caused by the shared use of 9 resources within a server. The scaling factor also 8 depends on the application. If the server is used as a virtualization platform for server consolidation, the system scales with a factor of When operated 6 with two processors, the system thus almost achieves 5 twice the performance as with one processor, as is 4 illustrated in the diagram opposite using the processor version Xeon E5649 as an example E E5649 Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 45 (60)

46 vservcon Score WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: The virtualization-relevant progress in processor technology since 2008 has an effect on the one hand on an individual and, on the other hand, on the possible maximum number of s up to CPU full utilization. The following comparison shows the proportions for both types of improvements. Three systems are compared with approximately the same processor frequency: a system from 2008 with 2 Xeon E5420, a system from 2009 with 2 Xeon E5540 and a current system with 2 Xeon E Few s Overall Optimum E GHz 4C 2009 E GHz 4C 2011 E GHz 6C 2008 E GHz 4C 2009 E GHz 4C 2011 E GHz 6C Year CPU Frequency #Cores 2011 TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 BX620 S6 BX920 S2 BX922 S2 BX924 S TX300 S5 RX200 S5 RX300 S5 BX620 S5 BX920 S TX300 S4 RX200 S4 RX300 S4 BX620 S The clearest performance improvements arose from 2008 to 2009 with the introduction of the Xeon 5500 processor generation (e. g. via the feature Extended Page Tables (EPT) 5 ). One sees an increase of the vservcon score by a factor of 1.30 with a few s (one tile). With full utilization of the systems with s there was an increase by a factor of The one reason was the performance increase that could be achieved for an individual (see score for a few s). The other reason was that more s were possible with total optimum (via Hyper-Threading). However, it can be seen that the optimum was "bought" with a triple number of s with a reduced performance of the individual. Where exactly is the technology progress between 2009 and 2011? The performance for an individual in low-load situations has basically remained the same for the processors compared here with the same clock frequency but with different cache size and speed of memory connection. The decisive progress is in the higher number of physical cores and associated with it in the increased values of pure performance (factor 1.47 in the diagram) and performance per Watt at full load. Electrical power consumption at full load is almost identical for the processors from 2009 and 2011 that are being compared, because the parameter used as the conventional guideline here, TDP (Thermal Design Power), is in both cases 80 W. This is why the performance per Watt has also increased by about a factor of We must explicitly point out that the increased virtualization performance as seen in the score cannot be completely deemed as an improvement for one individual. More than approximately 30% to 50% increased throughput compared to an identically clocked processor of the Xeon 5400 generation from 2008 is not possible here. Performance increases in the virtualization environment since 2009 are mainly achieved by increased numbers due to the increased number of available logical or physical cores. 5 EPT accelerates memory virtualization via hardware support for the mapping between host and guest memory addresses. Page 46 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

47 Benchmark environment The measurements were made with the environment described below: Framework controller Server Storage System Multiple 1Gb or 10Gb networks System under Test (SUT) Load generators All the vservcon scores for the Intel Xeon 55xx and 56xx processor series were determined by way of example on a PRIMERGY TX300 S6. SUT hardware Model Processor PRIMERGY TX300 S6 1 chip: Xeon E5649 (6C, 2.53 GHz) 2 chips: Xeon E5507 (4C, 2.27 GHz) Xeon L5609 (4C, 1.87 GHz) Xeon E5607 (4C, 2.27 GHz) Xeon L5630 (4C, 2.13 GHz) Xeon E5620 (4C, 2.40 GHz) Xeon E5630 (4C, 2.53 GHz) Xeon E5640 (4C, 2.67 GHz) Xeon X5647 (4C, 2.93 GHz) Xeon X5667 (4C, 3.07 GHz) Xeon X5672 (4C, 3.20 GHz) 2 chips: Xeon X5677 (4C, 3.47 GHz) Xeon X5687 (4C, 3.60 GHz) Xeon L5640 (6C, 2.27 GHz) Xeon E5645 (6C, 2.40 GHz) Xeon E5649 (6C, 2.53 GHz) Xeon X5650 (6C, 2.67 GHz) Xeon X5660 (6C, 2.80 GHz) Xeon X5670 (6C, 2.93 GHz) Xeon X5675 (6C, 3.07 GHz) Xeon X5680 (6C, 3.33 GHz) Xeon X5690 (6C, 3.46 GHz) Memory 96 GB (a PC R each, 8 GB, in DIMM-1A until DIMM-1F and in DIMM-2A until DIMM-2F) Network interface 2 1-GBit LAN; one for load (via 2 LAN adapters), one for control. Disk subsystem No internal hard disks were used, but FibreCAT CX500 storage systems. One 50 GB LUN per tile for the virtual disk files of the s. Each LUN is a RAID 0 array consisting of 5 Seagate ST disks (15 krpm). Storage connection Via FC controller Qlogic QLE 2462 SUT software Operating system Hypervisor ware ESX Server Version Version 4.0 U1; Build BIOS Version 6.00 R N1; deviations from default: Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch: Disabled; Hardware Prefetch: Disabled DCU Streamer Prefetch: Disabled; Data Reuse Optimization: Disabled SUT: virtualization-specific details ESX settings General details Default Described in the Benchmark Overview vservcon. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 47 (60)

48 Load generator hardware Model 17 PRIMERGY BX920 S1 server blades (PRIMERGY BX900 chassis) Processor 2 Xeon X5570, 2.93 GHz each Memory 12 GB Network interface 3 1 Gbit LAN each Operating system Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise with Hyper-V Load generator s (per tile 3 load generator s on various server blades) Processor 1 logical CPU Memory 512 MB Network interface 2 1 Gbit LAN each Operating system Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. Page 48 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

49 mark V1 Benchmark description This section is based on mark benchmark version 1.1.1, referred to hereinafter in short as mark V1. mark V1 is a benchmark developed by ware to compare server configurations with hypervisor solutions from ware regarding their suitability for server consolidation. In addition to the software for load generation, the benchmark consists of a defined load profile and binding regulations. For a long time mark V1 was the only established virtualization benchmark which enabled a multivendor comparison. Benchmark results achieved with mark V1 could be submitted to ware and were published on their Internet site after a successful review process. Today, mark V1 is only available for academic use and has been replaced by mark V2. For a benchmark like mark V1 to fulfil its objective, it must map the real world of a data center regarding server consolidation; in other words it must consider existing servers with those application scenarios that are normally virtualized. These servers have weak utilization levels and the aim is thus to consolidate as many of them as possible as s. Therefore, such a benchmark must assess for a virtualization host both the suitably determined overall throughput across the various application s as well as the number of efficiently operable s. The following solution concept has been established for these two objectives: a representative group of application scenarios is selected in the benchmark. They are started simultaneously as s on a virtualization host when making a measurement. Each of these s is operated with a suitable load tool at a defined lower load level. Such a group of s is known as a "tile". Application scenario Load tool A tile in mark V1 consists of six s; five of them Database server Sysbench are allocated to the selected application scenarios on a File server Dbench (modified) dedicated basis. A sixth is added, the so-called standby. mark V1 mandatorily allocates to each certain resources with regard to logical processors, Java application server Mail server SPECjbb2005 (modified) Loadsim 2003 memory and hard disk space. The table describes Web server SPECweb2005 (modified) these six s and the load tools used to measure them. Standby server - Depending on the performance capability of the underlying server hardware, you will - as part of a measurement - mostly have to start several identical tiles in parallel in order to achieve a maximum overall performance. System Under Test Database File server Java Mail Web Standby Tile n Database File server Database File server File server Database Java Java Java Mail Mail Mail Web Web Web Standby Standby Standby Tile 3 Tile 2 Tile 1 Each of the five mark V1 application scenarios provides a specific result for each. In order to derive a score the individual results are appropriately summarized for all s. The outcome is the mark V1 score for this tile number, that is why - in addition to the actual score - the number of tiles is always specified, e.g. "12.34@5 tiles". A detailed description of mark V1 is available in the document Benchmark Overview mark V1. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 49 (60)

50 tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles mark Score WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Benchmark results On 4 th May 2010 Fujitsu achieved a record mark V1 score with a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 and ware ESX v4.0 Update 1. With a score of 28.02@18 tiles the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is seen from the mark V1 viewpoint as the most powerful server with eight processor cores and is thus first in the mark V1 ranking for servers in the 8-core category (valid as of benchmark results publication date). The diagram shows the top results of the 8-core category with the results of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6, PRIMERGY BX922 S2 and PRIMERGY RX300 S5 in comparison 6 to the competitor systems Cores Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 Xeon X5677 Fujitsu PRIMERGY BX922 S2 2 Xeon X5677 HP ProLiant ML370 G6 2 Xeon W5580 HP ProLiant BL490c G6 2 Xeon X5570 Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 Xeon W5590 Cisco UCS B200 M1 2 Xeon X5570 SGI XE500 2 Xeon X5570 HP ProLiant BL490 G6 2 Xeon X5570 SGI XE270 2 Xeon X5570 Lenovo R525 G2 2 Xeon X5570 All scores as well as the detailed results and configuration data can be seen at Xeon processors of the 5500 series ensured a performance boost in the 8-core category some time ago. Of vital significance in this respect were the new processor features and the hypervisor version which optimally uses these processor features. These features include the extended page tables (EPT 7 ), Hyper-Threading and the fast memory connection within this processor architecture. All this has a particularly positive effect during virtualization. The Xeon 5600 series with the same proven features offers an even better performance. The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with the frequency-optimized 4-core Xeon X5677 processor can take the lead in the 8-core category more than 10% ahead compared with the previous processor. A memory configuration of 96 GB (12 8 GB), which was configured with maximal performance - i.e. with a speed of 1333 MHz, was required to operate the 18 tiles. All s, their application data, the host operating system as well as additionally required data were on a powerful fibre channel disk subsystem from ETERNUS DX80 systems with a total of 44 LUNs. All the components used were optimally attuned to each other. 6 7 The above comparisons for the competitor products reflect the status of 1st July The comparison is based on the mark V1 results for the 8-core server category. The mark V1 results are available at EPT accelerates memory virtualization via hardware support for the mapping between host and guest memory addresses. Page 50 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

51 The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is also able to maintain its position in the 12-core category. With a mark V1 score of "35.07@27 tiles" it is third in the mark V1 ranking for servers of the 12-core category, neck-andneck with the best rack server PRIMERGY RX200 S6 (valid as of benchmark results publication date). On account of the requirements made by the benchmark the memory had to be extended to 144 GB (18 8 GB) when operating 27 tiles. As a result of the system architecture the memory when configured with three DIMMs per channel is then reduced to the speed of 800 MHz. All s, their application data, the host operating system as well as additionally required data were on a powerful fibre channel disk subsystem from ETERNUS DX80 systems with a total of 41 LUNs. All the components used were optimally attuned to each other. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 51 (60)

52 Benchmark environment The measurement set-up is symbolically illustrated below: Server Storage System Multiple 1Gb or 10Gb networks Load Generators, incl. Prime Client System under Test (SUT) SUT hardware Model Processor Memory Network interface Disk subsystem PRIMERGY RX300 S6 18 tiles: 2 Xeon X5677 (4-core, 3.46 GHz) 27 tiles: 2 Xeon X5680 (6-core, 3.33 GHz) 18 tiles: 96 GB (12 8 GB per DIMM), 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 27 tiles: 144 GB (18 8 GB per DIMM), 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 18 tiles: 1 Integrated Intel 82575EB dual port 1GbE adapter, 1 Intel 82571EB dual port adapter 27 tiles: 1 Integrated Intel 82575EB dual port 1GbE adapter, 1 Intel 10 Gigabit X520-DA2 dual port server adapter No internal hard disks were used. 9 ETERNUS DX80 storage systems: a total of 196 hard disks in several RAID-0 arrays. Storage connection 1 dual port FC controller Emulex LPe12002 SUT software Operating system Hypervisor ware ESX Server ESX version 18 tiles: ware ESX v4.0 Update 1; Build tiles: ware ESX v4.0 Update 2; Build BIOS version 18 tiles: Rev R1.00e N1 27 tiles: Rev R N1 Load generator hardware Model 18 tiles: 18 Server Blade PRIMERGY BX620 S4 27 tiles: 27 Server Blade PRIMERGY BX620 S4 Processor 2 Intel Xeon 5130, 2 GHz Memory 3 GB Network interface 1 1 GBit LAN each Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise, updated with SP2 and KB Details See disclosure Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. Page 52 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

53 mark V2 Benchmark description mark V2 is a benchmark developed by ware to compare server configurations with hypervisor solutions from ware regarding their suitability for server consolidation. In addition to the software for load generation, the benchmark consists of a defined load profile and binding regulations. The benchmark results can be submitted to ware and are published on their Internet site after a successful review process. After the discontinuation of the proven benchmark mark V1 in October 2010, it has been succeeded by mark V2, which requires a cluster of at least two servers and covers data center functions, like Cloning and Deployment of virtual machines (s), Load Balancing, as well as the moving of s with vmotion and also Storage vmotion. mark V2 is not a new benchmark in the actual sense. It is in fact a framework that consolidates already established benchmarks, as workloads in order to simulate the load of a virtualized consolidated server environment. Three proven benchmarks, which cover the application scenarios mail server, Web 2.0, and e-commerce were integrated in mark V2. Application scenario Load tool # s Mail server LoadGen 1 Web 2.0 Olio client 2 E-commerce DVD Store 2 client 4 Standby server (IdleTest) 1 Each of the three application scenarios is assigned to a total of seven dedicated virtual machines. Then add to these an eighth called the standby server. These eight s form a tile. Because of the performance capability of the underlying server hardware, it is usually necessary to have started several identical tiles in parallel as part of a measurement in order to achieve a maximum overall performance. A new feature of mark V2 is an infrastructure component, which is present once for every two hosts. It measures the efficiency levels of data center consolidation through Cloning and Deployment, vmotion and Storage vmotion. The Load Balancing capacity of the data center is also used (DRS, Distributed Resource Scheduler). The result of mark V2 is a number, known as a score, which provides information about the performance of the measured virtualization solution. The score reflects the maximum total consolidation benefit of all s for a server configuration with hypervisor and is used as a comparison criterion of various hardware platforms. This score is determined from the individual results of the s and an infrastructure result. Each of the five mark V2 application or front-end s provides a specific benchmark result in the form of applicationspecific transaction rates for each. In order to derive a normalized score the individual benchmark results for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. The resulting dimensionless performance values are then averaged geometrically and finally added up for all s. This value is included in the overall score with a weighting of 80%. The infrastructure workload is only present in the benchmark once for every two hosts; it determines 20% of the result. The number of transactions per hour and the average duration in seconds respectively are determined for the score of the infrastructure workload components. In addition to the actual score, the number of mark V2 tiles is always specified with each mark V2 score. The result is thus as follows: Score@Number of Tiles, for example 4.20@5 tiles. A detailed description of mark V2 is available in the document Benchmark Overview mark V2. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 53 (60)

54 mark V2 Score tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles tiles WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S6 VERSION: Benchmark results On October 18, 2011 Fujitsu achieved with a PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with Xeon X5690 processors and ware ESX 4.1 U1 a mark V2 score of 7.59@7 tiles in a system configuration with a total of 2 12 processor cores and when using two identical servers in the System under Test (SUT). This score as well as the detailed results and configuration data can be seen at With these results the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 is from a mark V2 viewpoint the most powerful 2-socket server with 12 cores in a matched pair configuration consisting of two identical hosts (valid as of benchmark results publication date). The diagram shows the results of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 in comparison 8 with the appropriate competitor systems Cores Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 Xeon X IBM BladeCenter HS22V 2 Xeon X Dell PowerEdge R710 2 Xeon X Cisco UCS B200 M2 2 Xeon X Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX200 S6 2 Xeon X HP ProLiant BL490c G7 2 Xeon X Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX200 S6 2 Xeon X Cisco UCS B200 M2 2 Xeon X5680 Compared with the IBM and Dell results on comparable hardware, the increase is 0.93% (IBM) and 3.97% (Dell) respectively. The processors used, which with a good hypervisor setting could make optimal use of their processor features, were the essential prerequisites for achieving the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 result. These features include the extended page tables (EPT 9 ) and Hyper-Threading. All this has a particularly positive effect during virtualization. All s, their application data, the host operating system as well as additionally required data were on a powerful fibre channel disk subsystem from ETERNUS DX80 systems. If possible, the configuration of the disk subsystem takes the specific requirements of the benchmark into account. The use of SSDs (Solid State Disk) resulted in advantages in the number and response times of the hard disks used. The network connection of the load generators and the infrastructure workload connection between the hosts were implemented with the 10Gb LAN ports. All the components used were optimally attuned to each other. 8 The above comparisons for the competitor products reflect the status of 18th October The mark V2 results are available at 9 EPT accelerates memory virtualization via hardware support for the mapping between host and guest memory addresses. Page 54 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

55 Benchmark environment The measurement set-up is symbolically illustrated below: Clients & Management Server(s) Storage System Multiple 1Gb or 10Gb networks Load Generators incl. Prime Client and Datacenter Management Server vmotion network System under Test (SUT) SUT hardware Number of servers 2 Model PRIMERGY RX300 S6 Processor 2 Xeon X5690 (6-Core, 3.46 GHz) Memory 96 GB (12 8 GB per DIMM, 4R), 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 Network interface 1 integrated Intel 82575EB dual port 1GbE adapter 1 Intel 10 Gigabit 82599EB dual port server adapter Disk subsystem No internal hard disks were used. 6 ETERNUS DX80 storage systems a total of 109 hard disks (incl. SSDs) in several RAID-0 arrays Storage connection 1 dual port FC-Controller Emulex LPe12002 SUT software Operating system Hypervisor ware ESX Server ESX version ware ESX v4.1 U1 Build BIOS version Rev R1.10 Load generator hardware Model Processor Memory Network interface Operating system Details See disclosure 8 Server-Blade PRIMERGY BX620 S4 2 Intel Xeon 5130, 2 GHz (except Prime Client with 2 Intel Xeon X5470, 3.33 GHz) 4 GB 1 1 GBit LAN each Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise, updated with SP2 and KB Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 55 (60)

56 STREAM Benchmark description STREAM is a synthetic benchmark that has been used for many years to determine memory throughput and which was developed by John McCalpin during his professorship at the University of Delaware. Today STREAM is supported at the University of Virginia, where the source code can be downloaded in either Fortran or C. STREAM continues to play an important role in the HPC environment in particular. It is for example an integral part of the HPC Challenge benchmark suite. The benchmark is designed in such a way that it can be used both on PCs and on server systems. The unit of measurement of the benchmark is GB/s, i.e. the number of gigabytes that can be read and written per second. STREAM measures the memory throughput for sequential accesses. These can generally be performed more efficiently than accesses that are randomly distributed on the memory, because the CPU caches are used for sequential access. Before execution the source code is adapted to the environment to be measured. Therefore, the size of the data area must be at least four times larger than the total of all CPU caches so that these have as little influence as possible on the result. The OpenMP program library is used to enable selected parts of the program to be executed in parallel during the runtime of the benchmark, consequently achieving optimal load distribution to the available processor cores. During implementation the defined data area, consisting of 8-byte elements, is successively copied to four types, and arithmetic calculations are also performed to some extent. Type Execution Bytes per step Floating-point calculation per step COPY a(i) = b(i) 16 0 SCALE a(i) = q b(i) 16 1 SUM a(i) = b(i) + c(i) 24 1 TRIAD a(i) = b(i) + q c(i) 24 2 The throughput is output in GB/s for each type of calculation. The differences between the various values are usually only minor on modern systems. In general, only the determined TRIAD value is used as a comparison. The measured results primarily depend on the clock frequency of the memory modules; the CPUs influence the arithmetic calculations. The accuracy of the results is approximately 5%. This chapter specifies throughputs on a basis of 10 (1 GB/s = 10 9 Byte/s). Page 56 (60) Fujitsu Technology Solutions

57 Benchmark results The PRIMERGY RX300 S6 was measured with processors from the Xeon 5600 series. The benchmark was compiled using the Intel C compiler 12.0 and performed under SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP1 (64- bit). The data area consisted of 40 million elements, which is equivalent to about 305 MB. Processor Cores GHz L3 cache Memory timing TDP TRIAD [GB/s] Xeon E MB 1067 MHz 80 Watt 27.2 Xeon E MB 1067 MHz 80 Watt 27.2 Xeon E MB 1067 MHz 80 Watt 27.2 Xeon X MB 1067 MHz 130 Watt 33.4 Xeon E MB 1333 MHz 80 Watt 35.8 Xeon E MB 1333 MHz 80 Watt 35.9 Xeon X MB 1333 MHz 95 Watt 40.1 Xeon X MB 1333 MHz 130 Watt 39.7 Xeon X MB 1333 MHz 130 Watt 40.1 The results clearly show the difference between the processors with a maximum memory frequency of 1067 MHz and those with 1333 MHz. Thanks to the clock frequency and the larger L3 cache the Xeon X5647 achieves performance advantages over the other processors with a 1067 MHz memory frequency. Since the capacity limit of the memory controller is already reached with 4 threads per CPU, processors with 6 cores do not offer any better memory throughput than processors with 4 cores. The following diagram illustrates the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 in comparison to its predecessor, the PRIMERGY RX300 S5, in its most performant configuration. GB/s PRIMERGY RX300 S5 2 Xeon W5590 PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2 Xeon X5687 STREAM TRIAD Fujitsu Technology Solutions Page 57 (60)