TEST REPORT TEST REPORT FEBRUARY 2006 KEY FINDINGS

Similar documents
Out-of-box comparison between Dell and HP blade servers

Figure 1A: Dell server and accessories Figure 1B: HP server and accessories Figure 1C: IBM server and accessories

SERVER POWER CALCULATOR ANALYSIS: CISCO UCS POWER CALCULATOR AND HP POWER ADVISOR

Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers

Summary. Key results at a glance:

How To Compare Two Servers For A Test On A Poweredge R710 And Poweredge G5P (Poweredge) (Power Edge) (Dell) Poweredge Poweredge And Powerpowerpoweredge (Powerpower) G5I (

TEST REPORT Dell PERC H700 average percentage win in IOPS over FEBRUARY 2006 Dell PERC 6/i across RAID 5 and RAID 10. Internal HDD tests

RESOLVING SERVER PROBLEMS WITH DELL PROSUPPORT PLUS AND SUPPORTASSIST AUTOMATED MONITORING AND RESPONSE

Digi International: Digi One IA RealPort Latency Performance Testing

A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT WORKSTATION PRODUCTIVITY WITH THE DUAL-PROCESSOR LENOVO THINKSTATION D20 AUGUST 2011

ALIENWARE X51 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON: SAMSUNG SSD VS. TRADITIONAL HARD DRIVE

Adaptec: Snap Server NAS Performance Study

Adaptec: Snap Server NAS Performance Study

A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT VIDEO-RENDERING PERFORMANCE COMPARISON: DELL PRECISION MOBILE WORKSTATIONS VS. APPLE MACBOOK PROS MARCH 2012

TEST REPORT OCTOBER 2009 SMB Workload performance testing: PowerEdge T110 vs. an older small business desktop running typical small

A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT SHAREPOINT PERFORMANCE: TREND MICRO PORTALPROTECT VS. MICROSOFT FOREFRONT JULY 2011

Comtrol Corporation: Latency Performance Testing of Network Device Servers

Minimum Hardware Specifications Upgrades

Measuring Cache and Memory Latency and CPU to Memory Bandwidth

System Requirements Table of contents

Autodesk Revit 2016 Product Line System Requirements and Recommendations

Figure 2: Dell offers significant savings per chassis over HP and IBM in acquisition costs and 1-, 3-, and 5-year TCO.

AMD PhenomII. Architecture for Multimedia System Prof. Cristina Silvano. Group Member: Nazanin Vahabi Kosar Tayebani

Comparing Multi-Core Processors for Server Virtualization

Power Efficiency Comparison: Cisco UCS 5108 Blade Server Chassis and IBM FlexSystem Enterprise Chassis

TEST REPORT OCTOBER 2008 Performance of Dell and HP servers running Windows Small Business Server 2008

A+ Guide to Managing and Maintaining Your PC, 7e. Chapter 1 Introducing Hardware

Fusionstor NAS Enterprise Server and Microsoft Windows Storage Server 2003 competitive performance comparison

Intel Server S3200SHL

VIRTUALIZATION-MANAGEMENT COMPARISON: DELL FOGLIGHT FOR VIRTUALIZATION VS. SOLARWINDS VIRTUALIZATION MANAGER

WEB SERVER PERFORMANCE: DELL SERVERS

A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT WORKSTATION PRODUCTIVITY WITH THE DUAL-PROCESSOR LENOVO THINKSTATION D20 USING CATIA V6 OCTOBER 2011

White Paper Open-E NAS Enterprise and Microsoft Windows Storage Server 2003 competitive performance comparison

JUNE 2009 File server performance comparison of three Dell PowerVault NX3000 configurations using Microsoft FSCT

Intel Desktop Board DG31GL

Accelerating Data Compression with Intel Multi-Core Processors

Power Efficiency Comparison: Cisco UCS 5108 Blade Server Chassis and Dell PowerEdge M1000e Blade Enclosure

Minimum Hardware Specifications Upgrades

Molecular Devices High Content Data Management Solution Database Schema

How System Settings Impact PCIe SSD Performance

VERITAS Software - Storage Foundation for Windows Dynamic Multi-Pathing Performance Testing

Autodesk 3ds Max 2010 Boot Camp FAQ

Data Sheet ESPRIMO P1500. The wide-ranging home office and multimedia PC ESPRIMO P1500

Configuring Memory on the HP Business Desktop dx5150

Virtuoso and Database Scalability

Intel Xeon Processor 3400 Series-based Platforms

Microsoft Office Outlook 2013: Part 1

How To Perform A File Server On A Poweredge R730Xd With Windows Storage Spaces

Purpose Computer Hardware Configurations... 6 Single Computer Configuration... 6 Multiple Server Configurations Data Encryption...

Performance Characteristics of VMFS and RDM VMware ESX Server 3.0.1

Comparing the Network Performance of Windows File Sharing Environments

Power Comparison of Dell PowerEdge 2950 using Intel X5355 and E5345 Quad Core Xeon Processors

Fujitsu ESPRIMO P2560 Desktop PC

VMware VMmark V1.1.1 Results

Battery life performance ratings of the Acer Aspire Timeline 5810TZ notebook system

Tested product: Auslogics BoostSpeed

How To Test For Performance And Scalability On A Server With A Multi-Core Computer (For A Large Server)

Phone and Fax: (717) or Send to- On the Internet at

IBM Europe Announcement ZG , dated March 11, 2008

Data Sheet Fujitsu ESPRIMO P2440 Desktop PC

BIOS Update Release Notes

Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor

INSTALLATION GUIDE. AXIS Camera Station

EUCIP IT Administrator - Module 1 PC Hardware Syllabus Version 3.0

Hardware & Software Specification i2itracks/popiq

LOAD BALANCING IN THE MODERN DATA CENTER WITH BARRACUDA LOAD BALANCER FDC T740

Configuring and using DDR3 memory with HP ProLiant Gen8 Servers

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 with Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 vs. Linux Competitive Web Server Performance Comparison

LSI MegaRAID CacheCade Performance Evaluation in a Web Server Environment

EMC CLARiiON CX3 Series FCP

Highly Scalable Server for Many Possible Uses. MAXDATA PLATINUM Server 3200 I

Intel Server Board S5000PALR Intel Server System SR1500ALR

================================================================== CONTENTS ==================================================================

Fall Lecture 1. Operating Systems: Configuration & Use CIS345. Introduction to Operating Systems. Mostafa Z. Ali. mzali@just.edu.

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Linux Competitive File Server Performance Comparison

Intel Core i3-2310m Processor (3M Cache, 2.10 GHz)

Revit products will use multiple cores for many tasks, using up to 16 cores for nearphotorealistic

BIOS Update Release Notes

Measuring Processor Power

Chapter 5 Cubix XP4 Blade Server

DATABASE PERFORMANCE WITH ENTERPRISE-CLASS KINGSTON SSDS

DELL. Virtual Desktop Infrastructure Study END-TO-END COMPUTING. Dell Enterprise Solutions Engineering

Dell PowerEdge T105 server using an AMD Opteron 1389 processor

Computer Requirements

System Configuration and Order-information Guide ECONEL 100 S2. March 2009

Data Sheet ESPRIMO P3510. Your flexible economic PC ESPRIMO P3510

Dragon NaturallySpeaking and citrix. A White Paper from Nuance Communications March 2009

Configuring a U170 Shared Computing Environment

MICROSOFT SHAREPOINT CONSOLIDATION AND TCO: DELL POWEREDGE R720 VS. HP PROLIANT DL380 G7

Ash Capture Control User Guide

Intel architecture. Platform Basics. White Paper Todd Langley Systems Engineer/ Architect Intel Corporation. September 2010

DATABASE PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF VMWARE VCLOUD AIR, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AND MICROSOFT AZURE

Family 10h AMD Phenom II Processor Product Data Sheet

Intel 810 and 815 Chipset Family Dynamic Video Memory Technology

LSI Software RAID Configuration Utility

Sun Microsystems Special Promotions for Education and Research January 9, 2007

Infor Web UI Sizing and Deployment for a Thin Client Solution

ThinkCentre M82 Small and Tower

Intel 965 Express Chipset Family Memory Technology and Configuration Guide

TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP: DELL LATITUDE E6510 VS. APPLE 15-INCH MACBOOK PRO

Transcription:

TEST REPORT NOVEMBER 2007 64-bit Black-Scholes financial workload performance and power consumption on dualprocessor Intel- and AMD-based servers Executive summary Intel Corporation (Intel) commissioned Principled Technologies (PT) to measure the performance and power consumption of the 64-bit Black-Scholes financial application-based workload on dual-processor servers using the following three processors: Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) The Black-Scholes workload is multithreaded and allows users to specify the number of the program runs. Workload performance can increase as the number of increases, up to an optimum thread count, typically equal to the number of logical and physical processors available on the server. All three servers achieved their fastest completion times with 8, making 8 the optimum thread-to-processor configuration. In this section, we discuss the best results for each server. For complete details of the performance of each server with varying thread counts, see the Test results section Figure 1 illustrates the relative peak (dual-processor) performance/watt results of each server. The Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5450-based server delivered 90.6 percent KEY FINDINGS The Xeon E5450-based server delivered 90.6 percent more performance/watt than the TEST REPORT FEBRUARY 2006 -based server (see Figure 1). (We calculated performance/watt using system-level power measurements.) The Xeon E5450-based server delivered 117.5 percent more performance/watt than the Xeon E5345-based server (see Figure 1). (We calculated performance/watt using system-level power measurements.) The Xeon E5450-based server achieved a 124.9 percent jobs/hour performance increase over the Quad-Core AMD -based server using the Black-Scholes workload (see Figure 2). The Xeon E5450 -based server achieved a 106.9 percent jobs/hour performance increase over the Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5345-based server using the Black-Scholes workload (see Figure 2). more performance/watt than the -based server. In addition, the Xeon E5450-based server achieved 117.5 percent the Xeon E5345-based server. Black-Scholes relative performance/watt results To calculate the performance/watt we used the following formula: Normalized comparison 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 2 Processor, 2 Processor,8 Threads 8 Threads 2 Processor, 8 Threads Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) Performance/watt = (3,600 / the benchmark s duration in seconds) / (average power consumption in watts during the period in which the benchmark was delivering peak performance) This formula converts the elapsed time the benchmark took to complete into a runsper-hour metric, which we then use to compute the performance/watt. 0.00 Processor/number of Figure 1: Performance/watt results of the test servers running the Black- Scholes workload. Higher numbers indicate better performance/watt. Jobs/hour = 3,600 / Black-Scholes workload completion time in seconds Figure 2 presents the relative jobs/hour results of each server at its optimum thread count. To calculate jobs/hour, we used the following formula:

Normalized comparison 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Black-Scholes jobs/hour results 2 Processor, 2 Processor, 8 Threads 8 Threads As Figure 2 illustrates, the Xeon E5450-based server achieved 412.37 jobs/hour using the Black-Scholes workload. This is a 124.9 percent performance increase over the Quad-Core AMD -based server, which achieved a result of 183.39 jobs/hour using the same workload. The Xeon X5450-based server produced a 106.9 percent performance increase over the Quad-Core Intel Xeon X5345-based server, which achieved 199.34 jobs/hour. Workload The Black-Scholes kernel workload is based on a financial modeling algorithm for the pricing of European-style options. After its publication in 1973 by Fisher Black, Myron Scholes, and Robert Merton, its impact was enormous and rapid. The benchmark consists of a kernel that implements a derivative of the Black and Scholes technique. SunGard developed the code, which uses a continuous-fraction technique that is more accurate than the traditional polynomial approximation technique. Intel provided an enhanced 32-bit version of the Black-Scholes Kernel to www.2cpu.com, which created a 64-bit version. Intel then provided the www.2cpu.com 64-bit source code we used to build the executables we employed in this report. We reviewed the source and found no changes designed to favor one processor architecture over another. In the Test methodology section, we present the details of how we compiled this source code. Test results Figure 4 details the results of our tests with 2, 4, 8, and 16 using the Black-Scholes workload. For each test, we present the median run of the three individual test runs we executed. The test produces the time, in seconds, the server took to complete the workload; lower completion times are better. Figure 4 details the average power consumption of the test servers during the median runs of our tests with 2, 4, 8, and 16. Processor 2 Processor, 8 Threads Processor/number of Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) Figure 2: Normalized peak (dual-processor) performance of the servers with the optimum thread-to-processor configurations with the Black-Scholes workload. Higher numbers are better. 2 4 8 16 221.2 242.8 278.5 275.3 Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) 308.8 322.3 345.5 341.5 Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) 287.7 308.6 328.6 331.0 Figure 4: Average power usage (in watts) of the test servers with varying thread counts running the Black-Scholes workload. Lower numbers are better. Figure 5 details the power consumption, in watts, of the test servers while idle and during the median peak runs (at optimum thread count) of the benchmark. 2

Processor Idle power (watts) Average power (watts) 203.0 278.5 Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) 292.8 345.5 Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) 267.0 328.6 Figure 5: Average power usage (in watts) of the test servers while idle and during the median peak runs of the Black-Scholes workload. Lower numbers are better. As Figure 6 shows, all servers achieved their fastest completion times with 8, which means 8 is the optimum thread-to-processor configuration for these servers. Processor 2 4 8 16 79.86 40.03 19.63 21.23 Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) 71.89 36.08 18.06 19.89 Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) 34.50 17.39 8.73 9.67 Figure 6: Median completion times (in seconds) of the servers with varying thread counts using the Black-Scholes workload. Lower times are better. Figure 7 shows the completion times in jobs/hour. All servers achieved their highest job/hour results with 8. Processor 2 4 8 16 45.08 89.93 183.39 169.57 Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) 50.08 99.78 199.34 181.00 Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) 104.35 207.02 412.37 372.29 Figure 7: Median completion times (in jobs/hour) of the servers with varying thread counts using the Black-Scholes workload. Higher is better. 3

Test methodology Figure 8 summarizes some key aspects of the configurations of the test servers; Appendix A provides detailed configuration information. Server Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) Processor frequency (GHz) 1.9 2.33 3.0 Front-side bus frequency (MHz) 2,000 HyperTransport 1,333 1,333 Number of processor packages 2 2 2 Number of cores per processor package 4 4 4 Number of hardware per core 1 1 1 Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) Supermicro Supermicro Supermicro Motherboard H8DMU+ X7DBE+ X7DBE+ Chipset nforce Pro 3600 Intel 5000P Intel 5000P PC2-5300 FB- PC2-5300 FB- RAM PC2-5300 DIMM DIMM DIMM Western Digital Western Digital Western Digital Hard drive WD1600YD WD1600YD WD1600YD Figure 8: Summary of some key aspects of the server configurations. Intel configured and provided all three servers. With the following exceptions, we used the default BIOS settings on each server. On the Xeon X5345-based server we disabled Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch, Hardware Prefetcher, and High Bandwidth FSB; enabled C1 Enhanced Mode; and set Processor Power Management to GV1/GV3 on. On the Xeon X5450-based server we disabled Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch and Hardware Prefetcher; enabled C1 Enhanced Mode; and set Processor Power Management to GV1/GV3 on. On the - based server changed the ACPI Version Features to ACPI v3.0 and enabled PowerNow! We began our testing by installing a fresh copy of Microsoft* Windows* Server 2003 R2, Enterprise* x64 Edition Service Pack 2 on each server. We followed this process for each installation: 1. Assign a computer name of Server. 2. For the licensing mode, use the default setting of five concurrent connections. 3. Enter a password for the administrator log on. 4. Select Eastern Time Zone. 5. Use typical settings for the Network installation. 6. Use Testbed for the workgroup. We applied the following updates from the Microsoft Windows Update site: Security Update for Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB938127) Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB939653) Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition and Windows XP x64 Edition Security Update for Outlook Express for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB941202) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB933729) Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool x64 - October 2007 (KB890830) 4

Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB936021) Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB933360) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB938127) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB921503) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB936782) Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB932596) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB926122) Security Update for Windows Media Player 6.4 (KB925398) Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB936357) Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB929123) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB935839) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB935840) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB924667) Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB927891) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB932168) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB930178) Security Update for Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (KB925902) After the installation of the Microsoft updates, we made the following changes to the system: Changed the power scheme to Server Balanced Processor Power and Performance. Disabled screensaver. We then installed the Microsoft.NET* Framework, version 3.0.4506.30 with the default options; it is available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/. Power measurement configuration To record each server s power consumption during each test, we used an Extech Instruments (www.extech.com) 380803 Power Analyzer/Datalogger. We connected the power cord from the server under test to the Power Analyzer s output load power outlet. We then plugged the power cord from the Power Analyzer s input voltage connection into a power outlet. We used the Power Analyzer s Data Acquisition Software (version 2.11) to capture all recordings. We installed the software on a separate Intel processor-based PC, which we connected to the Power Analyzer via an RS-232 cable. We captured power consumption at second intervals. To gauge the idle power usage, we recorded the power usage for two minutes while each server was running the operating system but otherwise idle. We then recorded the power usage (in watts) for each server during the testing at second intervals. To compute the average power usage, we averaged the power usage during the time the server was producing its peak performance results. We call this time the power measurement interval. See Figures 3 (power consumption over time), 5 (power consumption at different thread counts), and 6 (idle and average peak power) for the results of these measurements. Installation of the Black-Scholes 64-bit version kernel workload Intel supplied the Black-Scholes 64-bit kernel workload compressed in a zip file. We unzipped the file s contents into a directory on a system separate from the servers under test. The folder contained C++ source code files and make files. We used Microsoft Visual Studio* 2005 and Intel compiler version 10.0.023 to build the 64-bit versions of the workload. To create the executables we used the following commands with both the AMD and Intel make files. nmake f Makefile.Intel all 5

nmake f Makefile.AMD all Once we built the executables, we created a folder on each server under test called BlackScholes and stored the executables in that folder. Make file for the server with AMD processors Application Name APPNAME = black_scholes_custom_2pass compiler CC = icl compilation options CFLAGS = -c -O3 -Qparallel -Zi -Ob2 CPASS1 = -Qprof_gen CPASS2 = -Qprof_use ARCH ARCH = amd linker LINK = xilink linker options LOPTS = /out:$(appname)_$(arch).exe /FIXED:no executable all: clean: $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe del BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe *.dyn *.dpi BenchFunction.obj: BenchFunction.cpp $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS1) BenchFunction.cpp ConsoleTest.obj : ConsoleTest.cpp $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS1) ConsoleTest.cpp $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe: clean BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(LINK) BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(LOPTS) $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe 2 $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS2) BenchFunction.cpp $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS2) ConsoleTest.cpp $(LINK) BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(LOPTS) $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe 8 6

Make file for the servers with Intel processors Application Name APPNAME = black_scholes_custom_2pass compiler CC = icl compilation options CFLAGS = -c -O3 -Qparallel -Zi -Ob2 CPASS1 = -Qprof_gen CPASS2 = -Qprof_use ARCH ARCH = intel linker LINK = xilink linker options LOPTS = /out:$(appname)_$(arch).exe /FIXED:no executable all: clean: $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe del BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe *.dyn *.dpi BenchFunction.obj: BenchFunction.cpp $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS1) BenchFunction.cpp ConsoleTest.obj : ConsoleTest.cpp $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS1) ConsoleTest.cpp $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe: clean BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(LINK) BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(LOPTS) $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe 8 $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS2) BenchFunction.cpp $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPASS2) ConsoleTest.cpp $(LINK) BenchFunction.obj ConsoleTest.obj $(LOPTS) $(APPNAME)_$(ARCH).exe 8 Black-Scholes kernel workload switches/parameters This workload provides the following switches, which we set as appropriate for each test run: /numthreads or /t This option designates the number of the workload should run. We set this to the number of we wanted in each test. 7

Number of steps This option designates the number of steps the workload should use to calculate the option price. By default, the workload assumes the following values: Number of : 4 Number of steps: 100,000,000 This workload defaults to four regardless of the number of logical processors available on the server. Running the Black-Scholes kernel workload We rebooted the server before each individual test and then followed this process to run the test: 1. Open a DOS command window. 2. Navigate to the C:\BlackScholes folder. 3. Enter the following command: blackscholes.exe,< of > 1000000000 > <server name>_< of >_<run no.>.txt, where a. 1000000000 is the number of steps b. <server name> is server name as appropriate c. < of > is either 2, 4, 8, or 16 as appropriate d. <run no.> is either 1, 2, or 3 (we ran each test three times) Each execution of the workload generates a text file that includes how long the workload took to complete. We recorded that time as the result for each run. 8

Appendix A Test system configuration information This appendix provides detailed configuration information about each of the test server systems, which we list in alphabetical order by processor name. Servers Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) General processor setup Number of processor packages 2 2 2 Number of cores per processor package Number of hardware per core System Power Management Policy 4 4 4 1 1 1 Server Balanced Processor Power and Performance Server Balanced Processor Power and Performance CPU Vendor AMD Intel Intel Name QuadCore Intel Xeon E5345 Stepping BA G C Socket type Socket F (1207) 771 LGA 771 LGA Core frequency (GHz) 1.9 2.33GHz 3.0GHz Front-side bus frequency (MHz) L1 cache L2 cache L3 cache Thermal design power (TDP, in watts) Platform Vendor and model number Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) Server Balanced Processor Power and Performance Xeon E5450 2,000 HyperTransport 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz 64 KB + 64 KB (per core) 4 x 512 KB (512 KB per core) 2MB (shared by all four cores) 32 KB + 32 KB (per core) 2 x 4MB (each 4MB shared by 2 cores) N/A 95 80 80 Supermicro SuperServer 2021M- UR+B Supermicro SuperServer 6025B- TR+ 32 KB + 32 KB (per core) 2 x 6MB (each 6MB shared by 2 cores) N/A Supermicro SuperServer 6025B- TR+ Motherboard model number H8DMU+ X7DBE+ X7DBE+ Motherboard chipset nforce Pro 3600 Intel 5000P Intel 5000P Motherboard revision number 1.00 2.01 2.01 BIOS name and version BIOS settings American Megatrends (2.0c) Enabled PowerNow!, ACPI Version Features to ACPI v3.0 Phoenix Technologies (1.3c) Disabled Hardware Prefetcher and High Bandwidth FSB, Enabled C1 Enhanced Mode, Set Processor Power Management to GV1/GV3 Only Phoenix Technologies (1.3c) Disabled Hardware Prefetcher, Enabled C1 Enhanced Mode, Set Processor Power Management to GV1/GV3 Only Chipset INF driver NVIDIA 4.57 Intel 8.2.0.1008 Intel 8.2.0.1008 Memory module(s) Vendor and model number Hyundai Kingston Kingston HYMP525P72BP4-Y5 KVR667D2D4F5/2G KVR667D2D4F5/2G 9

Servers Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) Type PC-5300 DDR2 PC2-5300 FB-DDR2 PC2-5300 FB-DDR2 Speed (MHz) 667 MHz 667 MHz 667 MHz Speed in the system currently 667 MHz 667 MHz 667 MHz running @ (MHz) Timing/Latency (tcl-trcdirp-trasmin) 5-5-5-15 5-5-5-15 5-5-5-15 Size 16,384 MB 16,384 MB 16,384 MB Number of RAM modules 8 8 8 Chip organization Double-sided Double-sided Double-sided Hard disk Vendor and model number Western Digital Western Digital WD1600YD WD1600YD Number of disks in system 1 1 1 Size 160 GB 160 GB 160 GB Buffer size 16 MB 16 MB 16 MB RPM 7,200 7,200 7,200 Type SATA-II SATA-II SATA-II Controller NVIDIA MCP55 SATA Controller Intel 631xESB/6321ESB Serial ATA Storage Controller Western Digital WD1600YD Intel 631xESB/6321ESB Serial ATA Storage Controller Driver version 5.2.3790.1830 8.2.0.1008 8.2.0.1008 Operating system Name Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2, Enterprise x64 Edition Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2, Enterprise x64 Edition Build number 3790 3790 3790 Service Pack SP2 SP2 SP2 File system NTFS NTFS NTFS Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2, Enterprise x64 Edition Kernel ACPI Multiprocessor ACPI Multiprocessor ACPI Multiprocessor x64-based PC x64-based PC x64-based PC Language English English English Microsoft DirectX version 9.0c 9.0c 9.0c Graphics Vendor and model number ATI ES1000 (RN50) ATI ES1000 (RN50) ATI ES1000 (RN50) Chipset ES1000 ES1000 ES1000 BIOS version BK-ATI BK-ATI VER008.005.007.001 VER008.005.007.001 Type Integrated Integrated Integrated Memory size 16 MB 16 MB 16 MB Resolution 1,024 x 768 1,024 x 768 1,024 x 768 Driver version 8.24.3.0 8.24.3.0 8.24.3.0 Network card/subsystem Vendor and model number NVIDIA nforce Networking Controller Intel PRO/1000 EB Network Connection with I/O Acceleration Type Integrated Integrated Integrated Driver version NVIDIA 65.3.1.0 Intel 9.7.34.0 BK-ATI VER008.005.007.001 Intel PRO/1000 EB Network Connection with I/O Acceleration Intel 9.9.8.0/Intel 10.0.15.0 10

Servers Optical drive Vendor and model number MATSHITA DVD- ROM SR-8178 Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) MATSHITA DVD- ROM SR-8178 Xeon E5450 (3.0GHz) MATSHITA DVD- ROM SR-8178 USB ports Number 4 4 4 Type USB 2.0 USB 2.0 USB 2.0 Power supplies Total number 2 2 2 Wattage of each 700W 700W 700W Cooling fans Total number 3 3 3 Dimensions 80mm 80mm 80mm Voltage 12V 12V 12V Amps 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.1 A Figure 9: Detailed system configuration information for the three test servers. Principled Technologies, Inc. 1007 Slater Road, Suite 250 Durham, NC 27703 www.principledtechnologies.com info@principledtechnologies.com Principled Technologies is a registered trademark of Principled Technologies, Inc. Intel and Xeon are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries.*all other product names are the trademarks of their respective owners Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitation of Liability: PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY OF ITS TESTING, HOWEVER, PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, RELATING TO THE TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS, THEIR ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES RELYING ON THE RESULTS OF ANY TESTING DO SO AT THEIR OWN RISK, AND AGREE THAT PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FROM ANY CLAIM OF LOSS OR DAMAGE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ALLEGED ERROR OR DEFECT IN ANY TESTING PROCEDURE OR RESULT. IN NO EVENT SHALL PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH ITS TESTING, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. S LIABILITY, INCLUDING FOR DIRECT DAMAGES, EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. S TESTING. CUSTOMER S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES ARE AS SET FORTH HEREIN. 11