© 2014 IBM Corporation The Economics and Value of Power Systems versus Linux on Intel
Dec 14, 2015
© 2014 IBM Corporation
The Economics and Value of Power Systems
versus Linux on Intel
What adds value when evaluating a platform for Critical Commercial Workloads?
Investment Protection – minimal platform disruptions with timely technology advancements (both HW and ISV SW)
Reliability, Availability and Serviceability Performance and Workload Priority Scalability for intended and unexpected growth Security – No one wants to be (a) Target And cost savings would be icing on the cake.
2
Investment ProtectionFor both HW and SW
3
Oracle Customer Base (Estimates)
6,000+ IBM Migration Factory competitive migrations since 2009
~2,300+ from Sun/Oracle
< Oracle Claims over 10,000 “Exa” Systems installed since 2008 (1/4 Rack UoM) ~3,000 customers
Exadata OLTP workloads (custom + all ISV)
Exalogic is a fraction of these
390,000 Oracle customers
>56% UNIX footprint on Power(19% on SPARC)
40,000 Oracle ISV apps on IBM
5
SPARC SuperCluster
.
Oracle Customer Base for Engineered Systems
Reliability, Availability and Serviceability
6
Area POWER8 Processor Based X86 Processor Based (2014)
Processor Core
Advanced Soft Error Resilient Technology
Yes: Hardened Stacked Latches and eDRAM on SOI
Limited: Improved Over Previous Generations
Hardware Directed Core/Cache Soft Error Handling
Yes:Processor Instruction RetryCache Line Purge and Delete
No: Software driven Machine Check Handling Only
Transparent Repair/Self-Healing In Processor for solid faults
Yes: Cache line/set delete/purgeL2/L3 Cache dynamic column repairAlternate Processor Recovery
No:Predictive Processor Deallocation and machine check handling only
Processor and I/O Infrastructure
Dedicated Service Processor Yes:OS Independent Automatic Error Analysis/Repair
For All failure modes
With full access to processor fault internals
No:Optional Service Processor
Not capable of full Analysis/Repair
Lacks full access to processor fault internals
Redundant Infrastructure Support Yes:Redundant Clock Interfaces SupportedRedundant Service Processor Interfaces
No:Single clock input for each processor
Power/Thermal Handling Yes:On Chip Controller
Yes:Built in to processor
Complete I/O Enhanced Error Handling
Yes:Integrated PCI Controller FreezePCIe Link retrain/retry
Limited:PCIe Link retrain/retry
Features may not be supported in all systems or software configurations
RAS Compare: POWER8 to E5 v2 and E7 v2 Processors
Area POWER8 Processor Based X86 Processor Based (2014)
Memory
Processor to Memory Bus Protection
Yes: Retry for soft errors in
memory controller
Memory bufferBus Retrain with Data Lane Sparing
Limited: Improved Over Previous Generations
Advanced DRAM Module Error Correction
Yes:Chipkill plus protection all DIMMs
Can handle 1 bad DRAM module for every 18 DRAMs
Limited: Chipkill plus protection on x4 DIMMS only
Can handle 1 bad DRAM module for every 18 DRAMS (performance mode) or
Can handle 2 bad DRAM module for every 36 DRAMS (RAS mode)
DIMM/DRAM Module Sparing Yes: Additional Spare DRAM for every 9 DRAMs
Limited: No DRAM module Sparing Can dedicate an entire Rank for each DIMM as spare for predictive errors (reduced memory capacity)
Solid Core Fault Handling Yes:Alternate Processor RecoveryCore Contained Checkstops
Limited: Software driven Machine Check Handling Only
Memory Mirroring Yes: Able to mirror of logical memory blocksSupports PowerVM (hypervisor) mirroring
Yes: Can mirror entire system memorySupport for hypervisor mirroring of OS and partitions depending on software used
Features may not be supported in all systems or software configurations
RAS Compare: POWER8 to E5 v2 and E7 v2 Processors
Power RAS is built into the platform (HW, OS, PVM) so clients do not have to dedicate scarce resources to prepare for downtime
• With built-in RAS, the platform comes close
to maintaining itself• 67% of corporations now require a minimum
of 99.99% uptime or better for mission critical
hardware, operating systems and main line of
business (LOB) applications• AIX on Power consistently has the least
amount of downtime in ITIC studies for
several years• Industry leading availability for all workloads,
including SAP
Source: ITIC 2013 Global Server Hardware, Server OS Reliability Survey, ITIC, (All rights reserved); January 2013.
Power exhibits only6.6 minutes of
planned downtime per year
9
Performance and Workload Priority
for confidence in consolidation
10
Key concept: workload management and virtualization
• Virtualized hosting platforms must be able to differentiate between high priority and low priority workloads when sharing resources
– The ability to maintain priority enables maximum utilization of the hosting platform– An inability to maintain priority means that separate platforms for high and low priority
workloads will be required, increasing the cost and complexity
• Power Systems workload management is nearly perfect when mixing workloads– Low priority workloads “donate” resources to high priority workloads when required, soak up
unused resources when available
• Hypervisors like VMware on Intel and Oracle VM on SPARC permit “leakage” where low priority workloads steal resources from high priority workloads
11
PowerVM workload management is nearly perfect when mixing workloads
High Priority Workload
Workload MetricsTotal Throughput: 14.42M
Run High And Low Priority Workloads Together
High Priority Workload MetricsTotal Throughput: 12.95M
10.2% throughput reduction
12
VMware workload management loses 30% throughput when mixing workloads
High Priority Workload
Workload MetricsTotal Throughput: 6.48M
Run High And Low Priority Workloads Together
High Priority Workload MetricsTotal Throughput: 4.48M
30.7% throughput reduction
13
Power8 E870 systems provide the best virtualization platform in the industry
• 2.60x VM’s per core73% more VM’s2 supported on only 40 POWER8 cores versus 60 E7-4890 v2 cores (codename: Ivy Bridge-EX)
• 2.70x Throughput per core 80% more system throughput3 on only 40 POWER8 cores versus 60 E7-4890 v2 cores (codename: Ivy Bridge-EX)
POWER8 Enterprise Servers – World’s Leading Virtualization PlatformEach POWER8 core supports over 2.6x the VMs1 of the best Intel Xeon x86 E7 class server core
Do not leave behind with client; presentation use only
1 Performance based on IBM Internal test of TPoX benchmark TPoX is an open-source benchmark developed by IBM in collaboration with Intel and others. It is available at: http://tpox.sourceforge.net/tpoxresults.htm. This study used TPoX version 2.1, accessing an IBM DB2 version 10.1 backend database.
2 Over 70% more VM’s on a POWER8 Enterprise E870 (40c/4.19 GHz POWER8) versus an HP DL580p (60c/2.7GHz E7-4890 v2) at equal throughput per VM with VMware vSphere 5.5 Upd1 at equal throughput per VM3 Up to 80% more throughput on a POWER8 Enterprise E870 (40c/4.19 GHz POWER8) versus an HP DL580p (60c/2.7GHz E7-4890 v2) at equal number of VMs with VMware vSphere 5.5 Upd1 at equal throughput per VM
• Published Benchmarks – • ALL data is PUBLISHED
x86“Ivy Bridge”
IBMPOWER S824
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2(except where noted)
POWER8 @ 3.5 GHz
# Cores 24 24
SAP 2-Tier 10253 21212 2.1
SPECint_rate2006 1020 1750 1.7
SPECfp_rate2006 734 1370 1.9
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) 63079 361293 5.7
SPECjEnterprise2010 11260 22543 2.0
Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll 10176391090909
(12-core)2.1
Siebel CRM Release 8.1.1.4 10000(16-core E5-2690)
50000(6-core)
13.3
Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 E5IBM POWER8 core and system performance is up to 5.7x the x86 Xeon E5-2697 v2 core performance
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 10/15//2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
• Industry Standard Benchmarks – • All Ivy Bridge performance numbers are IBM internal projections and publishes where available• IBM S824 data is published/projected
x86“Ivy
Bridge”
IBMPower S824
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
Power 8 @ 3.5 GHz
P8 Util: 100%x86 Util: 100%
P8 Util: 65%x86 Util: 40%
P8 Util: 65%x86 Util: 20%
# Cores 24 24Benchmark Utilization
Utilization with virtualized x86
Utilization without virtualized x86
OLTP 2100 3585 1.7 2.8 5.5
ERP SAP 2-Tier 10253 21212 2.1 3.4 6.7
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) 63079 361293 5.7 9.3 18.6
SPECint_rate 1020 1750 1.7 2.8 5.6
SPECfp_rate 734 1370 1.9 3.0 6.0
SPECjEnterprise2010 11260 22543 2.0 3.3 6.5
Published Projected
LEGEND:
Do not leave behind with client, presentation use only
Core Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86IBM POWER8 core performance is up to 18.6x the x86 Xeon E5-2697 v2 core performance (typical customer utilization)
• Published Benchmarks – ALL data is PUBLISHED
x86“Haswell”
IBM
POWER S824
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
(except where noted)
POWER8
@ 3.5 GHz
# Cores 36 24
SAP 2-Tier 16500 21212 1.9
SPECint_rate2006 1400 1750 1.8
SPECfp_rate2006 942 1370 2.1
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) 195119 361293 2.7
SPECjEnterprise2010 11260(24-core E5-2697 v2)
22543 2.0
Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll 1017639(24-core E5-2697 v2)
1090909(12-core)
2.1
Siebel CRM Release 8.1.1.4 10000(16-core E5-2690)
50000(6-core)
13.3
Performance comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 E5IBM POWER8 core and system performance is leadership versus the x86 Xeon E5-2699 v3
Updated with Haswell
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 10/15//2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
• Industry Standard Benchmarks – • All Intel performance numbers are IBM internal projections and publishes where available• IBM S824 data is published/projected
x86E5
IBMPower S824
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
Power 8 @ 3.5 GHz
P8 Util: 100%x86 Util: 100%
P8 Util: 65%x86 Util: 40%
P8 Util: 65%x86 Util: 20%
# Cores 36 24Benchmark Utilization
Utilization with virtualized x86
Utilization without virtualized x86
OLTP 2400 3585 2.2 3.6 7.2
ERP SAP 2-Tier 16500 21212 1.9 3.2 6.3
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) 195119 361293 2.7 4.5 9.0
SPECint_rate 1430 1750 1.8 2.9 5.9
SPECfp_rate 965 1370 2.1 3.4 6.8
SPECjEnterprise2010 16500 22543 2.0 3.3 6.5
Published Projected
LEGEND:
Do not leave behind with client, presentation use only
Core Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86IBM POWER8 core performance is up to 9.0x the best x86 Xeon E5 performance (typical customer utilization)
Updated with Haswell
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 10/15/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
• Infrastructure Software Price-performance has been REDUCED on Intel servers– Assumes flat system pricing
Software Licensing has increased by 1.5x– 12 cores versus 8 cores OR 18 versus 12
Performance has not increased proportionally to the chip core count resulting in higher software costs
– x86 publishes on 2-socket systems
POWER8 moves forwards while Xeon moves backwards IBM POWER systems continue to deliver improved system performance and more value per SW $ spent
Updated with Haswell
x86“Sandy Bridge”
x86“Ivy
Bridge”
x86“Haswell”
SystemPerformance
Ratio
POWER7+ POWER8 SystemPerformance
Ratio
2-socket E5-2690
2-socket E5-2697v2
2-socket E5-2699v3
SNB to
IVB
SNB to
HAS
IVB to
HAS
2-socket POWER7+
2-socket POWER8
POWER7+ to POWER8
# Cores 16 24 36 1.50 2.25 1.50 16 24 1.50
ERP SAP 2-Tier 7960 10253 16500 1.29 2.07 1.61 10000 21212 2.12
SPECint_rate 693 1020 1400 1.47 2.02 1.37 884 1750 1.98
SPECfp_rate 510 734 942 1.44 1.85 1.28 602 1370 2.28
SPECjbb2013 N/A 63079 195119 - - 3.09 NA 361293 -
SPECjEnterprise2010
8310 11260 N/A 1.35 - - 13161 22543 1.71
3.09 performance gain came from new version of Java and increased
memory (4x more)
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
POWER8 is 89% better at the system level and 2.7x the core
performance
• Published Benchmarks – • ALL data is PUBLISHED or SUBMITTED (SPECint_rate2006 and SPECfp_rate2006 on the
POWERS824)
Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 E7IBM POWER8 core performance is up to 7x the x86 Xeon E7-4890 v2 core performance
x86“Ivy Bridge”
IBMPOWER S824
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E7-x890 v2
POWER8 @ 3.5 GHz
P8 Util: 100%x86 Util: 100%
P8 Util: 65%x86 Util: 40%
P8 Util: 65%x86 Util: 20%
# Cores 60 24 Benchmark Utilization
Utilization with virtualized x86
Utilization with nonvirtualized
x86
SAP 2-Tier 25000 21212 2.1 3.4 6.9
SPECint_rate2006 2400 1750 1.8 3.0 5.9
SPECfp_rate2006 1770 1370 1.9 3.1 6.3
1) SAP results are based on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application. Results valid as of April 28, 2014. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark 2) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 4/22/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/
POWER8 core performance2 improvements surpass lagging x86 core performance
POWER8 core provides 35% better performance per SW license $ than POWER7+
– Intel Ivy Bridge Core degrades performance per SW license $ by 10% versus Sandy Bridge
1 Based on generational comparisons of SW that utilizes per core pricing and 50% more cores in per system (Power: 8c POWER7 to 12c POWER8; x86:8c E5-2690 to 12c E5-2697 v2)
2 Performance is based on published x86 data and published/projected POWER7+ & POWER8. Workloads are ERP, Integer, Floating Point, Java
POWER8 moves forwards while x86 moves backwards IBM POWER processors continue to deliver improved core performance – up to +35% versus POWER7+ while Intel went backwards (-10%) with Ivy Bridge versus Sandy Bridge.
21
2.17x ERP users per core with Power E870 with DB2 versus the competition on SAP Sales and Distribution 2-Tier BenchmarkNearly 1,000 Users per Core with POWER8 based E870
SD Benchmark Users per
Core
2.17X more users
3.18X more users
(1) IBM Power Enterprise System E870 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors / 80 cores / 640 threads, POWER8; 4.19GHz, 2048 GB memory, 79,750 SD benchmark users running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification #: 2014034 Result valid as of October 3, 2014. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.(2) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014(3) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (4) Oracle SPARC Server M5-32 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 32 processors/192 cores/1536 threads, SPARC M5; 3.60 GHz, 4,096 GB memory; 85,050 SD benchmark users, running Solaris® 11 and Oracle 11g; Certification # 20013009. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (5) Dell PowerEdge R920 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors/60 cores/120 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 4890 v2; 2.80 GHz, 1024 GB memory; 25,451 SD benchmark users, running SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014011. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (6) Oracle SPARC Server M6-32 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 32 processors/384 cores/3072 threads, SPARC M6; 3.60 GHz, 16 TB memory; 140,000 SD benchmark users, running Solaris® 11 and Oracle 11g; Certification # 20014008. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (7) Oracle SPARC Server T5-8 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors/128 cores/1024 threads, SPARC T5; 3.60 GHz, 2,048 GB memory; 40,000 SD benchmark users, running Solaris® 11 and Oracle 11g; Certification # 2013008. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies.
SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark Results, 2-Tier: SD Benchmark Users per CoreSAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0
Source: http//www.sap.com//benchmark
IBM E870
POWER8 AIX / DB2
8p/80c/640t
DellPowerEdge R920
E7-4890 v2SUSE / SAP ASE
4p/60c/120t
OracleT5-8T5
Sol / Oracle EE8p/128c/1024t
IBM S824
POWER8 AIX / DB2
4p/24c/192t
DellPowerEdge R730
E5-2699 v3RHEL / SAP ASE
2p/36c/72t
OracleM5-32
M5Sol / Oracle EE32p/192c/1536t
OracleM6-32
M6Sol / Oracle EE 32p/384c/3072t
POWER8 processing cores are the fastest in the industry for Java code
• 2.84x more performance per core than Intel E5-2699 v3 offerings (codename: Haswell-EP)
• 3.92x more performance per core than Intel E7-4890 v2 offerings (codename: Ivy Bridge-EX)
• 4.53x more performance per core than Oracle T5 offerings
POWER8 demonstrates the fastest Java code1 performance in the industry3.92x per core performance of the best Intel Xeon x86 E7- server core
OracleT5-2T5
32c/256t
CiscoUCS C460 M4
E7-4890 v260c/120t
HPDL 380p
E5-2699 v336c/72t
IBM E870
POWER8 80c/640t
1 Performance comparisons based on published SPECjbb2013 results as of October 1, 2014 http://www.spec.org/jbb2013/results/ . All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 15, 2014.
2x to 2.4x core performance advantage with E870versus 8-socket x86 Ivy Bridge-EX across key workloads
Java – SPECjbb2013 (Max-jOPS)4.1x Performance
ERP – SAP 2-Tier (Users) 2.4x Performance
SPECint_rate20062.0x Performance
SPECfp_rate20062.2x Performance
• Results are based on best published per core results on Xeon E7-8890 processor.• SAP results are based on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application. Results valid as of October 3, 2014. IBM Power Enterprise System E870
on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors / 80 cores / 640 threads, POWER8; 4.19GHz, 2048 GB memory, 79,750 SD benchmark users running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification #: 2014034 Result valid as of October 3, 2014. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. IBM System x3950 X6 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 8 processors/ 120 cores/ 240 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 8890 v2; 2.80 GHz, 1024 GB memory; 49,000 SD benchmark users, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014024. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark .
• SPECjbb2013 results are valid as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 15, 2014.• SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014.
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2IBM x3950 X6
Win 2012 / DB28s/120c/240t
POWER8IBM E870
8s/80c/640t
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2HP Converged System
8s/120c/240t
POWER8IBM E870AIX / DB2
8s/80c/640t
POWER8IBM E870
8s/80c/640t
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2Fujitsu PRIMEQUEST2800E
8s/120c/240t
POWER8IBM E870
8s/80c/640t
Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2Huawei RH8100 V3
8s/120c/240t
POWER8 S822L will deliver over 2.5x the performance of the best published x86 system
… and continues to offer far superior RAS
POWER8 exploits additional cores, more threads, larger caches, memory bandwidth
Terasort is a popular benchmark to measure the performance of a Hadoop solution
Sorts a large dataset (10 TB) in parallel Exercises the Map-reduced framework and
Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS)
IBM Analytics Stack: IBM Power System S822L; 24 cores / 192 threads, POWER8; 3.0GHz, 512 GB memory, RHEL 6.5, InfoSphere BigInsights 3.0
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/ns944/le_tera.pdf
POWER8 delivers 2.5x performance on Big Data / HadoopTerasort benchmark on a POWER8 doubles the system capacity of the best x86 published result
25
2.5x2.5x
(1) Performance data based on best published peak SPECint_rate2006 results. All results can be found at www.spec.org(2) Intel chip prices based on Intel published list prices. All chips and chip prices can be found at http://www.intc.com/pricelist.cfm
26
Intel Ivy Bridge-EPSPECint2006_rate
(2-socket)
Proc. # Cores Freq.List
Price (kU)
ResultS824 vs x86 SKU
E5-2697 v2 12 2700 2614 1020 1.72
E5-2695 v2 12 2400 2336 921 1.90
E5-2690 v2 10 3000 2057 900 1.94
E5-2680 v2 10 2800 1723 860 2.03
E5-2670 v2 10 2500 1552 816 2.14
E5-2660 v2 10 2200 1329 748 2.34
E5-2650 v2 8 2600 1166 689 2.54
E5-2640 v2 8 2000 885 542 3.23
E5-2630 v2 6 2300 612 506 3.46
E5-2620 v2 6 2100 406 430 4.07
E5-2609 v2 4 2500 294 250 7.00
E5-2603 v2 4 1800 202 186 9.41
Ivy Bridge (E5 family of chips) is the most current commodity 2-socket x86 offering
Varies from 4 to 12 cores and $200 to $2600 per chip
x86 performance marketing messages are focused on 12-core E5-2697 v2 (top of the line)
POWER8 performance is 2x versus E5-2697 v2 (top of the line) across multiple benchmarks (i.e. SPECjEnterprise2010, SAP 2-tier, etc.)
2.5x to 4x the performance of the x86 sweet spot (based on SPECint2006_rate)
Up to 9x compared to the bottom of the line Intel chip (based on SPECint2006_rate)
POWER8 delivers up to 4x the performance of x86 “sweet spot”Don’t allow x86 vendors to mix top of the line performance claims with low-performance chip & system pricing
(1) Performance data based on best published peak SPECint_rate2006 results. All results can be found at www.spec.org(2) Intel chip prices based on Intel published list prices. All chips and chip prices can be found at http://www.intc.com/pricelist.cfm
POWER8 delivers up to 3.3x the performance of x86 “sweet spot”Don’t allow x86 vendors to mix top of the line performance claims with low-performance chip & system pricing
Intel Haswell-EPSPECint2006_rate
(2-socket)
Proc. # Cores Freq.List Price (kUnits)
ResultS824 vs. x86 SKU
E5-2699 v3 18 2300 4025 1400 1.25
E5-2698 v3 16 2300 3167 1270 1.38
E5-2697 v3 14 2600 2702 1230 1.42
E5-2695 v3 14 2300 2424 1120 1.56
E5-2690 v3 12 2600 2090 1110 1.58
E5-2680 v3 12 2500 1745 1070 1.64
E5-2670 v3 12 2300 1589 1000 1.75
E5-2660 v3 10 2600 1445 912 1.92
E5-2650 v3 10 2300 1166 850 2.06
E5-2640 v3 8 2600 939 728 2.40
E5-2630 v3 8 2400 667 691 2.53
E5-2620 v3 6 2400 417 526 3.33
E5-2609 v3 6 1900 309 317 5.52
E5-2603 v3 6 1600 213 276 6.34
Haswell (E5 family of chips) is the most current commodity 2-socket x86 offering Varies from 6 to 18 cores and $200 to
$4,000 per chip x86 performance marketing messages
are focused on 18-core E5-2697 v2 (top of the line)
POWER8 performance is 2x versus E5-2699 v3 (top of the line) across multiple benchmarks (i.e. SPECjEnterprise2010, SAP 2-tier, SPECjbb2013, etc.)
2.4x to 3.3x the performance of the x86 sweet spot (based on SPECint2006_rate)
Over 6x compared to the bottom of the line Intel chip (based on SPECint2006_rate)
Updated with Haswell
ScalabilityControl and Contain Your Spend
Buy what you need, when you need it
28
POWER Systems Flexibility Advantage withOracle Database
Size individual database LPARs to match specific CPU, I/O and memory needs
Scale from very small to very large LPARs and Oracle instances
Create independent security domains Deploy varying versions of Oracle
Isolate critical databases in different LPARs Isolate database by department or other Mix test and production on the same frame Mix application and database on the same
machine
AIXWPARs
DB
DB
App
DB
OS
DB
OS
App
OS
DB
OS OS
DBDB
OS
RAC
OS
RAC
OS
RAC
OS
RAC
PowerVM Hypervisor PowerVM Hypervisor
= IBM Advantages
Implement and deploy an appropriate mix of RAC and non-RAC Oracle database instances as well as application instances
29
Market Positioning of PowerVM and VMware
PowerVM
Virtualization and partitioning since 2001
Microcode/eeprom hardware implementation
Enterprise mission critical platform that hosts multi-tier consolidation
I/O subsystem is managed in separate hardware and software partitions
Scalability: from 1 thread to 1024 simultaneous treads ( 32 chips / 256 cores)
Integrated in hardware and additional enhancements priced as features
AIX, i/OS, RedHat, SuSe, but no Windows support
VMware
PC virtualization since 1999, server virtualization since 2001
Proven 20 to 1 compression ration of real to virtual servers (of the right type)
Standard for x86 virtualization - Infrastructure and small applications
Pure software virtualization with 15% to 30% overhead in production workloads
Scalability: v4 1 to 8 threads ( .4 chips / 4 cores) v5 1 to 32 threads ( 1.6 chips /16 cores)
No partitioning technology
I/O is handled within virtual machines
No Oracle technical support or sub-capacity pricing support
Expensive and now priced on virtual resources
Oracle Certification For VMware and KVM• Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster you must license ALL of the cores in the cluster• Oracle DOES NOT recognise VMware as "hard partitioning"• http://blogs.gartner.com/chris-wolf/2010/11/10/oracle-broadens-x86-virtualisation
-support-but-work-remains/• Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster is not certified. If support is required for unknown problems then
you must recreate the problem without VMware installed view Oracle Metalink document 249212.1
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 integrates Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) and ships Xen as the default hypervisor, so they are supported by Oracle under the Oracle Linux support program. However, Oracle does not support Oracle products on RHEL's KVM/Xen.
• http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf
Security No one wants to be (a) Target
32
33
IT security is key to any your business as security breeches can cause irreparable damage
• The cost to your business can be in many forms
– Loss of customers– Customer dissatisfaction– Bad press– Ruined reputation– Government or regulatory investigations– Large fines or penalties– Lower productivity– Lower stock price
• Consider the monetary cost of a data breach1
– 204 USD per compromised customer record in 2009 for companies in the United States
– 6.75M USD per-incident total cost in 2009 for companies in the United States
Source: 1. Ponemon Study Shows the Cost of a Data Breach Continues to Increase; Ponemon Institute; November 2011. 2. Chronology of Data Breaches, Security Breaches 2005 – Present; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, http://www.privacyrights.org; November 2011.
Target apologizes for data breach, retailers embrace security upgrade
Target disclosed on December 19 that it was victim to one of the biggest credit card breaches on record. It said it ran for 19 days in the busy holiday shopping season through December 15.
Stores and card processing companies have reported a steady stream of security breaches for years without a major backlash from consumers, such as those disclosed by TJX Cos in 2007 and by Heartland Payment Systems Inc in 2009.But the latest thefts could mark a watershed moment for security standards as calls grow for changes in the protection of consumer information.
By Ross Kerber, Phil Wahba and Jim Finkle January 13, 2014 12:26 PM http://news.yahoo.com/target-apologizes-data-breach-retailers-embrace-security-upgrade-172658839--sector.html
34
Home Depot confirms security breach following Target data theft
“Home Depot Inc confirmed on Monday its payment security systems have been breached, a data theft analysts warn could rival Target Corp's massive breach last year.Home Depot said the data theft could impact its customers in stores across the United States and Canada…”http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/us-usa-home-depot-databreach-idUSKBN0H327E20140909
Security of critical workload (SAP) deployments on Power is beyond reproach
• SAP on Power versus competitive SAP deployments study with over 54,150 clients analyzed
• The security for ERP systems, including SAP, can be very challenging – by nature, the mixture of application modules, user profiles, plug-in components and so on, provide many avenues for security breaches
Source: Business Impacts on SAP Deployments; Solitaire Interglobal Ltd (All rights reserved); January 2013.
0 reported security breeches with SAP and IBM DB2 or
Oracle DB on Power
35
Server virtualization security is critical for DB workloads since many are run in virtual environments
• The PowerVM hypervisor has never had
a reported security vulnerability and
provides the bullet-proof security that
customers demand for mission-critical
workloads• Dare to compare – search any
security tracking DB and compare
Power against x86
0 reported security breeches
on the PowerVM hypervisor
36
Cost Savings on Power
37
Source: Capacity based on IBM Sizing of typical SPECint_rate landscape and 3rd party analysis of system utilization.
Current Configuration 100 2-socket x86 servers Xeon X5690 processor 12 cores per server, 2
threads per core 3.46 GHz 1200 total cores VMWare
Ivy Bridge Configuration 69 2-socket x86 servers Xeon E5-2697 v2 processor 24 cores per server, 2 threads
per core 2.8 GHz 1656 total cores VMWare
1.5X
increased
throughput
Per-core SW Costs INCREASE 34%!!!
Current x86
Platform
(circa 2011)
POWER8 DELIVERS EQUAL CAPACITY with
1/3 of the Servers (LOWER MANAGEMENT COSTS)
1/3 of the Cores (LOWER SW COSTS)
1/3 of the Space (LOWER INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS)
ALL for <50% of the x86 HW TCA
POWER8
Platform
(2014)
New x86
Platform
(2014)
Per-core SW Costs DECREASE up to 54%!!!
Power S822L Configuration 23 2-socket POWER8 servers POWER8 processor 24 cores per server, 8 threads
per core 3.0 GHz 552 total cores
Intel: Reduce HW infrastructure in a virtualized environment but increase per-core SW costs…POWER8: Reduce HW infrastructure EVEN MORE and REDUCE per-core SW costs up to 54%
Power S822L
TCA/TCO is for 34 servers, 816 cores
3x better virtualized throughput vs. an HP 2 socket Ivy Bridge
2S, 24 cores each POWER8, 3.0GHz PowerVM
HP DL 380 G8
TCA/TCO is for 100 servers, 2400 cores
100 HP servers needed for ~ equal virtualized throughput of 34 Power S822L
2S, 24 cores each Ivy Bridge, 2.7GHz VMware vSphere Ent
58%lower total HW TCA vs.
Ivy Bridge w/ VMware
POWER8 delivers lower cloud infrastructure costs Thirty-four 2-socket Power S822L servers do the job of 100 2-socket x86 (HP DL380) servers running equal virtualized capacity
39
$1,307,776
$2,951,257
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
S822L/24c HP DL380p IvB(2s)
Total HW TCA
HW TCA
Source: Capacity based on IBM Sizing of typical SPECint_rate landscape and 3rd party analysis of system utilization. Pricing from www.hp.com.
66% Less Systems & Cores Lower SW License Fees
Reduced Management CostsReduced Floor Space
Power S824
TCA/TCO is for one servers, 24 cores
4x better virtualized throughput vs. an HP 2 socket Ivy Bridge
2S, 24 cores each POWER8, 3.5GHz PowerVM Oracle EE Database
HP DL 380 G8
TCA/TCO is for four servers, 96 cores
4 HP servers needed for ~ equal ERP throughput of 1 Power S824
2S, 24 cores each Ivy Bridge, 2.7GHz VMware vSphere Ent. Oracle EE Database
47% lower total TCA
vs. HP Ivy Bridge w/
VMware
$531,0993-yr. TCO savings
vs. HP Ivy Bridge w/ VMware
Source: Capacity based on IBM Sizing of typical ERP landscape and IBM estimates of system utilization. Pricing from www.hp.com
$85,431
$342,000
$118,050
$684,000
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
S824/24c HP DL380p IvB(2s)
Total TCA
SW TCA
HW TCA
$586,911
$1,118,010
$-$200,000
$400,000$600,000
$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000
S824/24c HP DL380p IvB(2s)
3-yr TCO
3-yr TCO
Save $500K in your Oracle DB ERP environment with POWER8 vs x86 One 2-socket Power S824 server does the job of four 2-socket HP DL380p Gen8 servers running equal virtualized ERP capacity with a Oracle EE Database
40
41
Power S822
TCA/TCO is for four servers, 80 cores
2S, 20 cores each POWER8, 3.5GHz PowerVM Oracle EE Database
HP DL 380 G8
TCA/TCO is for ten servers, 240 cores
2.5x HP servers needed for ~ equal OLTP throughput of Power S822
2S, 24 cores each Ivy Bridge, 2.7GHz VMware vSphere Ent. Oracle EE Database
41
Save over $1.3M in your Oracle DB OLTP environment with POWER8 vs x86 Four 2-socket Power S822 servers do the job of Ten 4-socket HP DL380 servers running equal virtualized OLTP capacity with Oracle EE Database
60% Lower HW TCA
51%Lower Total TCA
$1,329,9543-yr. TCO savings
vs. HP Ivy Bridge with
VMWare
POWER8 delivers equal ERP performance at 51% lower total TCA than Intel 8-socket IvBTwo 8-socket Power E870 servers with Oracle DB ERP compared against Three 8-socket x86 E7-8890 v2 servers shows lower TCA and TCO while delivering equal performance
Source: Capacity based on IBM Sizing of typical ERP landscape and IBM estimates of system utilization. This is an IBM sizing designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload used in the marketplace. The results are calculated and not an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor. Pricing from www.oracle.com
51% Lower Total TCA
$2.3M3-yr. TCO savings
vs.. 8-socket x86 Servers
8-socket E7 Servers
TCA/TCO is for 3 servers, 360 cores
8S/120 cores per server E7-8890 v2, 2.8GHz VMWare Oracle EE
$601,694
$912,000
$517,676
$2,565,000
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
E870 / 64c / 4.02 HP DL980/IvB (8s)
Total TCA
SW TCA
HW TCA
$1,923,974
$4,256,276
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
E870 / 64c / 4.02 HP DL980/IvB (8s)
3-yr TCO
3-yr TCO
Power E870
TCA/TCO is for two servers, 128 cores
8S/64 cores per server POWER8, 4.02 GHz PowerVM Oracle EE
Power S822
TCA/TCO is for one servers, 20 cores
2S, 20 cores each POWER8, 3.4GHz PowerVM Oracle EE Database
Intel 2s Haswell
TCA/TCO is for four servers, 72 cores
2S, 24 cores each Haswell 2.3GHz VMware vSphere Ent. Oracle EE Database
68% lower total TCA
vs. Intel Haswell 2s
w/ VMware
$483,0033-yr. TCO savings
vs. Intel Haswell 2s
w/ VMware
Source: Capacity based on IBM Sizing of typical ERP landscape and IBM estimates of system utilization. Pricing from www.hp.com
Save $480K in your Oracle DB ERP environment with POWER8 vs x86 Haswell One 2-socket Power S822 server does the job of two 2-socket Intel Haswell servers running equal virtualized ERP capacity with a Oracle EE Database
43
S822/20c/3.42 HP DL380p/HAS (2s) $-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$65,428 $59,355
$423,000
$761,400
Total TCA
SW TCA
S822/20c/3.42 HP DL380p/HAS (2s) $-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$683,548
$1,166,551
3-yr TCO
3-yr ...
IBM and Business Partner Use ONLY
3 x 2-socket Haswell108 Total CoresVMWare40% utilizationWebsphere
1 x POWER8 S822L24 Total CoresPowerVM65% utilization (guaranteed)Websphere
Return to x86 Tactics
$38,464$115,920
$98,655
$521,640
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
S822L/24c/3.02 HP DL380p/HAS (2s)
Total TCA
SW TCA
HW TCA
$209,752
$845,121
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
S822L/24c/3.02 HP DL380p/HAS (2s)
3-yr TCO
Now let’s look at Intel’s latest 2-socket Haswell-EP boxes running a java workload (SPECjbb2013)
1x2-socket Power S822L outperforms 3x2-socket x86 with
LOWER HW/SW TCA and TOTAL TCO
IBM S822L has:Better performance
61% Lower HW TCA75% Lower Total TCA
Source: Capacity based on IBM Sizing of typical SPECjbb2013 and 3rd party analysis of system utilization. . This is an IBM sizing designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload used in the marketplace. The results are calculated and not an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitorPrices, where applicable, are based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor.
Production US DollarSelectable
Power System Competitive SystemOverwritable
Workload ERP ResultsDB Licensing OracleEE OracleEEFraction of DB Cores 100% 100%Virtualization PowerVM NoneClustering None NoneOracle RAC RAC RAC
DB SW Contract Discount 70% 70%
Based on DB Licensing - overwritable
Architecture Power Intel/x86
System S822/20c HP DL380p/IvB (2s)# Systems 2 10Frequency (MHz) 3400 2700Mem Option Mem per SystemGB per System 320 384
HW Discount 0% 35%
Power system includes discounted HW, SW (OS/PVM), Maint.
Sustained Utilization 65% 20%
System Cores 40 240 500%Database License Cores 40 240Memory 640 3840
Performance 19875 18432
HW TCA $ 92456 $ 140719 52%advantage
SW TCA $ 846000 $ 2538000 200%advantage
TOTAL TCA $ 938456 $ 2678719 185%advantage
SW TCO $ 1218240 $ 3654720 200%advantage
TOTAL 3-yr TCO $ 1328696 $ 3832939 188%advantage
3-Year Savings $ 2504243
Power requires fewer cores (and DB cores), as well as overall memory due to PowerVM utilization, compared to this example of running an ERP workload on a physical x86 server
Power/AIX vs Linux on Intel TCA/TCO 2s Ivy Bridge Servers versus S822 for ERP Workloads
45
Power System Competitive SystemOverwritable
Workload ERP Results
DB Licensing OracleEE OracleEE
Fraction of DB Cores 100% 100%
Virtualization PowerVM VMWare
Clustering None None
Oracle RAC RAC RAC
DB SW Contract Discount 70% 70%
Based on DB Licensing - overwritable
Architecture Power Intel/x86
System S822/20c HP DL380p/IvB (2s)
# Systems 3 10
Frequency (MHz) 3400 2700
Mem Option Mem per System
GB per System 320 384
HW Discount 0% 35%
Power system includes discounted HW, SW (OS/PVM), Maint.
Sustained Utilization 65% 40%
System Cores 60 240 300%Database License Cores 60 240
Memory 960 3840
Performance 29812 31334
HW TCA $ 138684 $ 200719 45%advantage
SW TCA $ 1269000 $ 2538000 100%advantage
TOTAL TCA $ 1407684 $ 2738719 95%advantage
SW TCO $ 1827360 $ 3654720 100%advantage
TOTAL 3-yr TCO $ 1993044 $ 3892939 95%advantage
3-Year Savings $ 1899895
Lintel - What happens to TCA/TCOWhen VMWare is used for the x86 systems?
While adding VMWare will assist in driving up the utilization level on x86 systems, it does not drive them to the level that PVM can, and adds cost to the x86 TCA
And look at the SW TCA benefit we bring over x86!
46
IBM POWER7/8® Systems Linux on Intel
HW/OS RAS Features
IBM Power with AIX offers the least amount of downtime per year
Fastest Patch Time – 11 minutes
Less than 30 minutes of downtime/server/year
Linux on Intel requires up to 4.5x more downtime
27 minutes to patch each Lintel server
Nearly 1.5 hours of downtime/server/year
PerformanceIndustry-leading performance and benchmarks from 2-16 sockets per server
Delays in roadmap execution have resulted in lagging performance
Planned DowntimeLPM can be used to ensure the workloads and users are not disrupted during planned maintenance
Expensive software investments are required to support planned downtime, including RAC and server cluster software
Virtualization
Allows optimization of Oracle licenses to reduce number required by driving sustained utilization levels higher through dynamic resource reallocation
All features are certified and supported for use with Oracle
Fragmented virtualization options that rely on OS, and are limited in functionality due to OS restrictions – no dynamic reallocation of resources
VMWare/KVM/Xen not certified or supported for use with Oracle
SecurityZERO Critical or High Security Threats – Most secure platform/OS in industry
Climbing number of security threats reported – Linux is the OS where 31% of all security threats reported
Roadmap
History of a clear roadmap with timely execution
Intel has slipped in their execution of roadmap, leaving gaps in addressing increasing workload demands. No 8 socket EX for SB
Top Reasons IBM POWER Systems are Better for Critical Workloads Compared with Linux on Intel
All of these reasons add up to significant TCA/TCO savings for YOU when you move your Oracle DB workloads to IBM Power Systems
Avg 150/mo Reported Security Vulnerabilities in RHEL 2013
Conclusion: The Other Systems are NOT as Good
• POWER Systems Deliver a Lower TCA and TCO Compared againstLinux on Intel
• Power Delivers– Better Investment Protection for both HW and SW– Better RAS features at a lower Cost– Better Performance at Higher System Utilization/Performance Levels
Which we Guarantee – POWER8 65% Sustained Utilization Guarantee with No Degradation in Performance
– Better Scalability for intended and unexpected growth – buy what you need, when you need it
– Better SecurityDon’t be (a) Target
Don’t waste resources (time and money) patching endless systems– And cost savings with POWER IS the icing on the cake
48
Power Systems have a Lower TCA Why Compromise?
Thank YouThank You
Merci
Grazie
Gracias
Obrigado
Danke
Japanese
Hebrew
English
French
Russian
German
Italian
Spanish
Brazilian Portuguese
Arabic
Traditional Chinese
Simplified Chinese
Hindi
Tamil Korean
Thai
TesekkurlerTurkish