Real-world virtualization benchmarking: the best server CPUs compared
by Johan De Gelas on May 21, 2009 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
The Quest for an Independent Real-World Virtualization Benchmark
As we explained in our Xeon Nehalem review, comprehensive real-world server benchmarks that cover the market are beyond what one man can perform. Virtualization benchmarking needs much more manpower, and it is always good to understand the motivation of the group doing the testing. Large OEMs want to show off their latest server platforms, and virtualization software vendors want to show how efficient their hypervisor is. So why did we undertake this odyssey?
This virtualization benchmark was developed by an academic research group called the Sizing Server Lab. (I am also part of this research group.) Part of the lab is academic work; the other part is research that is immediately applied in the field, in this case software developers. The main motivation and objective of the applied research is to tell developers how their own software behaves and performs in a virtual environment. Therefore, the focus of our efforts was to develop a very flexible stress test that tells us how any real-world application behaves in a virtualized environment. A side effect of all this work is that we came up with a virtualization server benchmark, which we think will be very interesting for the readers of AnandTech.
Although the benchmark was a result of research by an academic lab, the most important objectives in designing our own virtualization benchmarks are that they be:
- Repeatable
- Relevant
- Comparable
- Heavy
Repeatable is the hardest one. Server benchmarks tend to run into all kinds of non-hardware related limits such as not enough connections, locking contention, and driver latency. This results in a benchmark that rarely runs at 100% CPU utilization and the CPU percentage load changes for different CPUs. In "Native OS" conditions, this is still quite okay; you can still get a decent idea of how two CPUs perform if one runs at 78% and the other runs at 83% CPU load. However, in virtualization this becomes a complete mess, especially when you have more virtual than physical CPUs. Some VMs will report significantly lower CPU load and others will report significantly higher CPU load when you are comparing two servers. As each VM is reporting different numbers (for example queries per second, transactions per second, and URL/s), average CPU load does not tell you the whole story either. To remedy this, we went through a careful selection of our applications and decided to keep only those benchmarks that allowed us to push the system close to 95-99% load. Note that this was only possible after a lot of tuning.
Comparable: our virtualization benchmark can run on Xen, Hyper-V and ESX.
Heavy: While VMmark and others go for the scenario of running many very light virtual machines with extremely small workloads, we go for a scenario with four or eight VMs. The objective is to find out how the CPUs handle "hard to consolidate" applications such as complex dynamic websites, OnLine Transaction Processing (OLTP), and OnLine Analytical Processing (OLAP) databases.
Most importantly: Relevant. We have been working towards benchmarks using applications that people run every day. In this article we had to make one compromise: as we are comparing the virtualization capabilities of different CPUs, we had to push CPU utilization close to 100%. Few virtualized servers will run close to 100% all the time, but it allows us to be sure that the CPU is the bottleneck. We are using real-world applications instead of benchmarks, but the other side of coin is that this virtualization benchmark is not easily reproducible by third parties. We cannot release the benchmark to third parties, as some of the software used is the intellectual property of other companies. However, we are prepared to fully disclose the details of how we perform the benchmarks to every interested and involved company.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
tshen83 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
Jarred:Let's not fool each other. Johan's AMD bias is disgusting.
My assertion that HardOCP killed the GPU market is simply trying to show you the effect of invalidating industry standard benchmarks. Architecturally, Nvidia's GPU bigger monolithic cores are far more advanced than ATI's cores right now. In GPGPU applications, it is not even close. The problem with gaming FPS benchmark as I have said is that developers are typically happy once the FPS reaches parity. It does not show architectural superiority.
vApus? There are a ton of questions unanswered.
1. Who wrote the software?(I assume European)
2. Does the software scale linearly? And does the software scale on both AMD and Intel architecuture?
3. Why benchmark 4 Core Virtual machines when we know that VMware doesn't really scale that well themselves in SMP setup?
4. Seriously? Nieuws.be OLAP database? How many real world people run Nieuws.be?
I usually don't respond to Anandtech articles unless the article is disgustingly stupid. I also don't understand why you guys can't accept the fact that Nehalem is in fact 100% performance/watt improved vs the previous generation Xeon. It is backed by data from more than one industry standard benchmark.
Is AMD worth a look today? No, absolutely not. If you are still considering anything AMD today, you are an idiot. (The world is full of idiots) AMD's only chance is if they can release the G34 socket platform within a TDP range that is acceptable before they run out of cash.
Before you call me a troll, remind yourself this: usually the troll is smarter than the people he/she is trolling. So ask yourself this question: did Johan deserve the negative critism?
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
You criticize every one of his articles, often because I'm not sure your reading comprehension is up to snuff. His "AMD bias" is not disgusting, though I'm quite sure your Intel bias is far worse than his AMD bias. The reason 3DMark has been largely invalidated is that it doesn't show realistic performance - though some of the latest versions scale similarly to some games, at best 3DMark measures 3DMark performance. Similarly, VMmark measures VMmark performance. Unless your workload is the same as VMmark, it doesn't really tell you much.1 - Who wrote the software? According to the article, "vApus or Virtual Application Unique Stresstest is a stress test developed by Dieter Vandroemme, lead developer of the Sizing Server Lab at the University College of West-Flanders." His being European has nothing to do with anything at all, unless you're a racist, bigoted fool.
2 - 2-tile and 3-tile testing is in the works. It will take time.
3 - Perhaps because there are companies looking for exactly that sort of solution. I guess we should only test situations where VMware performs optimally?
4 - The source of the database is not so critical as the fact that it is a real-world database. Whether Johan uses a DB from Nieuws.be, AnandTech.com, Cnet.com, or some other source isn't particularly meaningful. It is a real setup used outside of benchmarking, and he had access to the site.
I usually don't respond to trolls unless they are disgustingly stupid as well. I don't understand why you can't accept the fact that Nehalem isn't a panacea that fixes all the world's woes. That is backed by the world around us which continues to have all sorts of problems, and a "greener" CPU isn't going to save the environment any more than unplugging millions of cell phone charges that each consume 0.5W of power or less.
AMD is certainly worth a *look* today. Will you actually end up purchasing AMD? That depends largely on your intended use. I have old Athlon 64/X2 systems that do everything that they need to do. For a small investment, you can build a much better AMD HTPC than Intel - mostly because the cheap Intel platform boards are garbage. I'd take a lesser CPU with a better motherboard any day over a top-end CPU with a crappy motherboard. If you want a system for less than $300, the motherboards alone would make me tend towards AMD.
Of course, that completely misses the point that this isn't even remotely related to that market. Servers are in another realm, and features and support are critical. If you have a choice between AMD quad socket and Intel dual socket, and the price is the same, you might want the AMD solution. If you have existing hardware that can be upgraded to Shanghai without changing anything other than the CPU, you might want AMD. If you're buying new, you'd want to look at as much data as possible.
Xeon X5570 still surpasses AMD in the initial tests by over 30%, which is not insignificant. If that extends to 50% or more in 2-tile and 3-tile setups, it's even more in Intel's favor. However, a 30% advantage is hardly out of line with the rest of the computing world. SYSmark 2007 shows the i7 965 beating the Phenom II 955 by 26.6%. Photoshop CS4 shows a 48.7% difference. DivX is 35.3%, xVid is 15.9% pass1 and 65.4% pass2, and WME9 is 25%. 3dsmax is 55.8%, CINEBENCH is 42%, and POV-ray is 65.3%.
Which of those tests is a best indication of true potential for Core i7? Well, ALL OF THEM ARE! What's the best virtualization performance metric out there? Or the best server benchmark out there? They're ALL important and useful. vApus is just one more item to look at, and it still shows a good lead for Intel.
Where is the 100% perf/watt boost compared to last generation? Well, it's in an application where i7 can stretch its eight threaded muscles. Compared to AMD, the performance/watt benefit for an entire system is more like 40% on servers. For QX9770, i7 965 is 32% more perf/watt in Cinebench, or 37.6% in Xvid. I doubt you can find a 100% increase in performance/watt without cherry-picking the benchmark and CPUs in question, but that's what you're already determined to do. That, my friend, is true bias - when you can't even admit that anything from the competition might be noteworthy, you are obviously wearing blinders.
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
Umm based on your two rants this means you have ZERO knowledge working with virtual desktops/terminal servers/virtual applications.I feel I need to make two corrections.
One: ATI's die size is roughly 75% of Nvidia's, how do you conclude that Nvidia is better? Well honestly you can not because if you scale the performance and had the same die size of Nvidia, then ATI would be killing them.
Second: Majority of enterprise's run AMD and Intel, in fact not till Neh. did Intel really come into the virtualization market.
tshen83 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
"Umm based on your two rants this means you have ZERO knowledge working with virtual desktops/terminal servers/virtual applications. "Really? Just how did you come up with this revelation?
"One: ATI's die size is roughly 75% of Nvidia's, how do you conclude that Nvidia is better? Well honestly you can not because if you scale the performance and had the same die size of Nvidia, then ATI would be killing them. "
You don't know shit about GPUs.
"Second: Majority of enterprise's run AMD and Intel, in fact not till Neh. did Intel really come into the virtualization market. "
True. That's what I am saying too, if you listened. I said, "no one should be considering AMD today because Nehalem is here".
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
I came to that conclusion based on your incoherent rants.Why would you say I do not know shit about GPU's? I provided you a fact, your illogical thinking does not change the matter. It comes down to die size and ATI wins performance/DIE. If you would like to argue that claim with then please do so.
Who would consider Neh in todays market? Very few, unless you are a self proclaimed millionaire who crazily spends or needing the extra performance boost in some applications like exchange.
Viditor - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
Guys, it's tshen...nobody over the age of 12 listens to his rants anyway, so don't feed the troll (or ban him if you can...).leexgx - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
LOL nice rant3dmark cant be used any more as its not an 3dmark any more its more like an 3d gpu/cpu mark the CPU can sway the total result
AMD cpus have been using dedicated bus that talks to each other cpu socket and has direct access to the ram, allso AMD does have V-amd as well on all amd64 am2 cpus as well as optrons an (baring sempron)
Makaveli - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
Ya what is the post all about.HardOCP killed the GPU market? I don't know about you but I never bought a videocard because of its 3dmark score. It's one benchmark that both companies cater to but is of little importance. Hardocp review method has much more valuable data for me than one benchmark.
Let me ask you this when you are buying a car or anything of siginicant value. Do you not do your homework is one review being either positive or negative enough to drop your hard earned cash?
If so Bestbuy is that way!
As for the rest of your post the personal attacks and childish language cleary show your not even worth taking seriously. Sounds more like the ramblings of a Highschool child who is trying to get attention.
Good day to you sir,
Godspeed
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
You have no idea what you are talking about. The benchmark software can be downloaded. It is not our fault you are to poor to pay for a product.The rest I have to say "LOL".
DeepThought86 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link
Wow, just wow.