Comparing the Performance and Power of Dell VRTX and HP c3000

Transcription

1 Comparing the Performance and Power of Dell VRTX and HP c3000 This white paper compares the power efficiency of shared infrastructure solutions based on the Dell PowerEdge VRTX and the HP BladeSystem c3000 Brian Bassett, Solutions Performance Analysis John Barnhart, Server Technical Marketing Dell Enterprise Solutions Group

2 This document is for informational purposes only and may contain typographical errors and technical inaccuracies. The content is provided as is, without express or implied warranties of any kind Dell Inc. All rights reserved. Dell and its affiliates cannot be responsible for errors or omissions in typography or photography. Dell, the Dell logo, and PowerEdge are trademarks of Dell Inc. IBM is a registered trademark of International Business Machines Corporation. Intel, SpeedStep, and Xeon are registered trademarks of Intel Corporation in the U.S. and other countries. Microsoft, Windows, and Windows Server are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Other trademarks and trade names may be used in this document to refer to either the entities claiming the marks and names or their products. Dell disclaims proprietary interest in the marks and names of others. June 2013 Version 1.1

3 Contents Executive summary... 5 Introduction... 5 Key findings... 5 Performance... 5 Power efficiency... 5 Ease of management... 5 Cost... 5 Methodology... 6 Configuration... 7 Server nodes, chassis, and internal chassis components... 7 Performance SQL Server 2012 performance testing Exchange storage performance testing Power efficiency Ease of management Acquisition cost, energy cost, and TCO Acquisition cost Energy cost Administrative costs Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Summary Appendix A Test methodology BIOS settings Operating system tuning Power and temperature configuration Appendix B Server node firmware and drivers Appendix C Tools required to set up shared storage in the HP c3000 solution... 21

4 Tables Table 1: Shared infrastructure solution configurations... 7 Table 2: Detailed configuration for server nodes used in the comparisons... 7 Table 3: Additional nodes required to provide shared storage in the HP solution... 9 Figures Figure 1: The VRTX as shown in the VRTX Chassis Management Controller GUI interface... 8 Figure 2: The c3000 chassis as displayed through the HP BladeSystem Onboard Administrator Figure 3: SQL Server Performance Figure 4: Exchange storage subsystem performance comparison Figure 5: Average power draw while running the Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 workload Figure 6: Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 IOPS per watt comparison Figure 7: SQL Server 2012 TPS per watt comparison... 13

5 Executive summary Introduction In this study, the performance and power efficiency of remote office/branch office solutions based on the Dell PowerEdge VRTX and the HP BladeSystem c3000 shared infrastructure platforms are compared. Based on the results of the testing performed, the solution based on the PowerEdge VRTX with M-series server nodes provides considerably better overall performance, operational efficiency, and systems management simplicity at a much lower cost compared to the BladeSystem c3000 solution. For customers who need enterprise-class performance, ease of use, are space-constrained, and desire a lower total cost of ownership, the Dell PowerEdge VRTX is clearly the better alternative. Key findings Performance The Dell VRTX solution achieved 36% higher transactions per second (TPS) than the HP c3000 solution using Microsoft SQL Server 2012 and Quest Software s Benchmark Factory for Databases tool. The Dell VRTX solution achieved 79% higher IOPS than the HP c3000 solution using Microsoft Exchange 2013 and the Jetstress 2013 tool. Power efficiency The Dell VRTX solution drew 19% less power than the HP c3000 solution when running the Jetstress 2013 tool. This lower power draw, combined with the Dell solution s 79% higher IOPS when running the Jetstress tool, led to a 122% higher IOPS per watt score compared to the HP solution. The Dell VRTX solution drew 12% less power than the HP c3000 solution when running the SQL Server 2012 workload. This lower power draw, combined with the Dell solution s 36% higher performance, led to a 54% higher TPS per watt score compared to the HP solution. Ease of management The shared storage in the Dell VRTX solution can be configured in 92% fewer steps and 95% less time than the shared storage in the HP c3000 solution. Cost The Dell VRTX solution costs 26%, or $19,579 less than the HP c3000 solution as tested, and would cost $160 less per year to run a sample workload. The Dell PowerEdge VRTX provides up to 22% lower 3 year TCO compared to the HP c3000. Test methodology and detailed results are documented in this paper.

6 Methodology In order to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, the two solutions were configured as similarly as possible. The Dell PowerEdge solution was based on the recently introduced VRTX shared infrastructure platform, while the HP BladeSystem solution was based on the recently introduced c3000 Platinum Enclosure. Each solution had four Intel Xeon E server nodes configured as similarly as possible (PowerEdge M620 server nodes in the Dell solution, and ProLiant BL460c Gen8 server nodes in the HP solution), and 24 drives of shared storage inside each enclosure, which was made available to all four server nodes for virtual machine and data storage. In the case of the Dell VRTX solution, the shared storage consisted of 24 drives installed in the enclosure s storage backplane and made available to all four server nodes through the integrated and shared PERC8 adapter. For the HP c3000 solution, the 24 drives of storage were installed in two D2200sb storage blades, which hold up to 12 drives each. These storage blades make their storage available through an integrated Smart Array P410i adapter to the blade installed in the adjacent slot, which is referred to as a partner blade. Both of the partner blades were running HP s StoreVirtual VSA, version 10.0, which came bundled with the D2200sb storage blades and allows the partner blade to present the storage as an iscsi target on the network. Both partner blades were added to the same management group using HP s LeftHand Centralized Management Console so that their 24 drives of storage appeared as one storage pool to the server nodes. The HP StoreVirtual VSA software runs inside a Hyper-V virtual machine that must be hosted on a Windows server with the Hyper-V role enabled. Rather than potentially degrading the performance of the shared storage in the HP solution by hosting the VSA virtual machine on one of the four server nodes, the partner blades in the HP solution were additional BL460c Gen8 servers configured to meet the minimum specifications of the HP StoreVirtual VSA software. To ensure that both solutions had enough power for all workloads, they both had their maximum number of platinum-rated power supplies installed. Each enclosure has a feature which allows its management firmware to turn off power supplies if load is lower than the capacity needed, and the feature was enabled for both solutions. Both solutions ran Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Datacenter on each of four server nodes, with Hyper-V enabled and the SQL and Exchange workloads running inside virtual machines which also had Windows Server 2012 Datacenter installed. All components in each solution were updated to the latest firmware, driver, and software revisions available at the time the testing was conducted. This version information is detailed in Appendix B.

7 Configuration Server nodes, chassis, and internal chassis components Each remote office solution was configured with four server nodes, Gigabit Ethernet, and the maximum number of supported platinum-rated power supplies. Enclosure Chassis slots occupied / total Table 1: Shared infrastructure solution configurations Dell VRTX Solution PowerEdge VRTX (2.5 backplane model) 4/4 8/8 HP c3000 solution BladeSystem c3000 Platinum Enclosure Server nodes 4 x PowerEdge M620 4 x ProLiant BL460c Gen8 Internal I/O Module Shared storage drive slots occupied / total Management module Power supply quantity/rating 1GbE Ethernet pass-through module with 8 external ports 24/25 24/24 1 x VRTX CMC Module 4 x 1100W platinum rated (Dell P/N 0GYH9V) HP 1Gb Ethernet pass-through module for c-class BladeSystem 1 x c3000 Tray with embedded DDR2 Onboard Administrator 6 x 1200W platinum rated (HP P/N B21) The server nodes in the two solutions were configured as similarly as possible, with comparable processors, hard drives, and memory. Storage controllers were matched as closely as possible between the vendors. The configurations of the server nodes are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Detailed configuration for server nodes used in the comparisons Dell PowerEdge M620 HP Proliant BL460c Gen8 Sockets/form factor 2/half-height 2/half-height Processors 2 x Intel Xeon E x Intel Xeon E Physical/logical cores 16/32 16/32 Memory 8 x 8GB Dual Ranked PC3L-10600R, LV RDIMMs 8 x 8GB Dual Ranked PC3L-10600R, LV RDIMMs Hard drives 2 x 146GB 15k 6Gb, RAID 1 2 x 146GB 15k 6Gb, RAID 1 Network Onboard 2-port Intel X520-k 10GbE Onboard 2-port FlexFabric 10Gb 554FLB FlexibleLOM Storage controller Dell PERC H310P HP Smart Array P220i As noted in Table 2, all server nodes were equipped with Low Voltage Registered DIMMs (LV RDIMMs) purchased with their respective systems and running at the default 1.35 volts. The server nodes were set to their BIOS default settings for all tests to simulate a typical initial deployment. All server nodes ran Windows Server 2012 Datacenter with all Critical and Important Windows updates installed as of the time of the testing, with all Windows settings left at their defaults except for enabling the Hyper-V role.

8 Figure 1: The VRTX as shown in the VRTX Chassis Management Controller GUI interface Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the Dell PowerEdge VRTX solution as displayed in the included VRTX Chassis Management Controller interface. To ensure each solution had the same 24 drives of shared storage, the 25 th drive bay in the VRTX solution was left unpopulated. In order to provide in-chassis shared storage to the HP solution, two D2200sb storage blades were installed in the HP c3000 Platinum Enclosure, occupying two of the remaining four slots. Since the drives in the storage blades are only available as direct attach storage to the adjacent blade in the chassis (referred to as a partner device in the HP BladeSystem Onboard Administrator), two additional ProLiant BL460c Gen8 servers were installed as the partner devices, each running Windows Server 2012 and hosting the preconfigured Hyper-V virtual machine running HP StoreVirtual VSA software. The hardware on each partner device was minimally configured to meet the minimum specifications of the StoreVirtual VSA software, with a single quad-core, 2.4GHz, 80W processor each. Figure 2: The c3000 chassis as displayed through the HP BladeSystem Onboard Administrator. The configurations of the additional servers required to provide shared storage in the HP solution are summarized in Table 3.

9 Table 3: Additional nodes required to provide shared storage in the HP solution HP Solution Storage Blades HP Solution Partner Nodes Model 2 x D2200sb Storage Blade 2 x BL460c Gen8 Form factor Half-height Half-height CPU N/A 1 x Intel Xeon E5-2609, 80W Physical/logical CPU cores Memory Hard drives Network Storage controller N/A 4/4 N/A 12 x 300GB 15k 6Gb SAS drives per D2200sb storage blade, 24 drives total N/A Smart Array P410i controller with 1GB Flash-backed write cache 4 x 4GB Dual Ranked PC3L-10600R, LV RDIMMs 2 x 146GB 15k 6Gb, RAID 1 Onboard 2 port FlexFabric 10gb 554FLB FlexibleLOM HP Smart Array P220i Controller As recommended in the HP StoreVirtual VSA Installation and Configuration Guide, iscsi traffic and VM traffic were separated onto separate network adapters on the HP partner nodes and server nodes.

10 Transactions per second (TPS) Comparing the Performance and Power of Dell VRTX and HP c3000 Performance SQL Server 2012 performance testing To test the SQL Server 2012 performance of each solution, we used Quest Benchmark Factory for Databases version On both solutions, the SQL Server instance was hosted in a Hyper-V virtual machine running Windows Server 2012 Datacenter with eight virtual processors and 24GB of memory. The virtual machine s virtual hard disk resided in a 300GB volume created on each solution s shared storage, with a 600GB volume for database logs and the remainder (2.45TB) of the shared storage devoted to data storage. For this testing, the database and database log volumes were marked offline in Windows Disk Management so that the volumes could be added as physical hard disks to the virtual machine running SQL Server SQL Server 2012 was installed on the virtual machine on each solution, and a test database created with default settings. Using the Benchmark Factory script Create Objects with TPC-E, run from a driver system running outside both enclosures, we created a TPC-E database on each virtual machine. The script was set to Scale 3, which creates a 25GB database. Once the database creation was complete, SQL Server Management Studio was used to back up the database so that a fresh copy could be restored prior to each run. We then ran Benchmark Factory s TPC-E Transaction Mix, which simulates an Online Transaction Processing workload, with virtual users ranging from one to 35, and the highest result achieved by each solution was used. The VRTX solution achieved its peak database transactions per second (TPS) at 32 virtual users, while the HP solution achieved its peak TPS at 30 virtual users. Figure 3 shows the peak TPS for each solution. Figure 3: SQL Server Performance 1,200 1,000 SQL Server 2012 / Benchmark Factory TPS (higher is better) 1,002 The Dell VRTX achieved 36% higher SQL database Transactions Per Second (TPS) than the HP c3000 solution The results show a 36% advantage in TPS for the Dell solution based on the PowerEdge VRTX compared to the HP solution based on the BladeSystem c3000.

11 Input/Output Operations Per Second (IOPs) Comparing the Performance and Power of Dell VRTX and HP c3000 Exchange storage performance testing To test the storage performance of each solution while running an Exchange workload, we installed Microsoft s Jetstress 2013 storage stress utility for Exchange 2013, and the required Exchange 2013 binaries. The Jetstress tool uses the actual Exchange 2013 binaries to simulate a typical Exchange I/O load. Jetstress 2013 was installed on a virtual machine running on the server nodes in each solution. We used Hyper-V Manager to create four 300GB Hyper-V virtual hard disks (VHDX) files on each solution s shared storage data volume, and added them to the virtual machine. These virtual hard disks were mounted in the virtual machine and used as the storage for the databases for the Jetstress 2013 tool. On both solutions, we ran the Jetstress 2013 tool and selected the test disk subsystem throughput test scenario. The databases were allowed to use all available storage capacity, and the thread count was fixed at 24. Finally, the performance test type was selected with four databases (one per VHDX) and one copy per database. The results of the testing show that the PowerEdge VRTX solution achieved 79% more IOPS when running the Jetstress 2013 workload compared to the BladeSystem c3000 solution. Figure 4: Exchange storage subsystem performance comparison 2,500 Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 Storage IOPS (higher is better) 2,340 2,000 1,500 1,308 1,

12 Average power draw, in Watts Comparing the Performance and Power of Dell VRTX and HP c3000 Power efficiency To examine the power efficiency of these solutions, we captured the power consumption data from all power supplies of each solution while running the Exchange/Jetstress 2013 workload. Using the Yokogawa WT210 power meter and the Yokogawa WTViewer software, power consumption was captured once per second during the entire run and averaged for each solution. Figure 5: Average power draw while running the Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 workload Power draw while running Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 workload (lower is better) The testing shows the Dell solution drawing 152 watts (19%) less power than the HP solution while running this workload. When the IOPS performance metric is combined with the power draw measurements, it creates a performance per watt metric which demonstrates the advantages of the VRTX solution. This result is shown in Figure 6.

13 TPS / Watt Input / Output Operations per Watt Comparing the Performance and Power of Dell VRTX and HP c3000 Figure 6: Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 IOPS per watt comparison 3.90 IOPS per watt (Exchange 2013 / Jetstress 2013 workload, higher is better) Similarly, the benchmark factory Transactions per Second (TPS) metric can be divided by the watts each solution consumed while running that benchmark to produce a power efficiency measurement, as seen in Figure 7. The VRTX solution holds a 54% advantage in this comparison. Figure 7: SQL Server 2012 TPS per watt comparison 1.60 Transactions per second (TPS) per watt (SQL 2012 / Benchmark Factory workload, higher is better)

14 Ease of management In order to set up the shared storage on the VRTX solution, an administrator only needs to use one tool: the VRTX Chassis Management Controller (CMC). Inside that tool, an administrator can navigate to the storage section and follows the prompts to create a 20-drive virtual disk and assign it to all four server nodes in the chassis using a total of 15 steps and without having to access any of the server nodes via a remote console. To configure the shared storage in the HP solution using the bundled StoreVirtual VSA software, we used the steps from the HP StoreVirtual VSA Installation and Configuration Guide, following the best practices outlined there. Configuration of the shared storage on the partner devices required accessing both partner devices through their ilo4 Remote Console to configure the underlying RAID volumes and install the VSA appliance. Next, we had to install and configure the HP LeftHand Centralized Management Console application on a separate management system, and add the storage and server nodes to a VSA Management Group. Finally we created a volume and assigned it to each server, and had access each server node through its ilo4 Remote Console to connect to the volume through the iscsi initiator. Time to set up shared storage Steps to set up shared storage Dell VRTX 2 minutes, 35 seconds 15 HP c minutes, 3 seconds 193 In all, configuring the shared storage on the Dell solution required 92% less steps (15 on Dell vs. 193 for HP) and 95% less time (2 minutes, 35 seconds for Dell vs. 56 minutes, 3 seconds for HP). And, the Dell storage was configured using just one tool compared to the nine tools used to configure the HP storage. The nine tools used to set up the HP solution are detailed in Appendix C.

15 Acquisition cost, energy cost, and TCO We calculated the cost of acquiring and powering each solution over a three-year period for the Dell PowerEdge VRTX and the HP c3000. The calculations for the costs of hardware are based on full retail price as of June 2013 and do not include any contract pricing or discounts. Acquisition cost The solutions used in the study were configured as closely as possible to each other, with four server nodes and 24 drives of shared storage each. However, when comparing the acquisition costs, there was a significant difference. Price as tested Dell VRTX Solution $57,117 HP c3000 Solution $76,696 The Dell PowerEdge VRTX is 26% less expensive as configured than the HP c3000 hardware. This savings of $19,579 per solution means that a business with 100 branch locations would save $1,957,900 in acquisition costs. Energy cost Our testing showed that the Dell PowerEdge VRTX provided better performance per watt when running common enterprise applications. The PowerEdge VRTX used 152 watts (19% less power) while running the Exchange workload; over the course of a year, this adds up to 1332 kilowatt-hours (kwh). Assuming a power cost of $0.12 per kwh, a PowerEdge VRTX running a similar workload could save $160 per year. If those savings were calculated across an organization with 100 offices with one PowerEdge VRTX in each location, the company would save up $48,000 over a three-year period on energy alone. If we include cooling costs, which are often estimated at one dollar of cooling cost for each dollar of energy cost, the three year savings jumps to $96,000. Administrative costs We calculated the cost of a server administrator salary at $116,377 per year and based on their ability to administrate up to 50 server nodes, which brings the costs to $ per server. In this case, neither solution has an advantage as these costs are fixed.

16 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) When calculating the annual costs of each solution we used very simple costs for support, administration, and energy consumption. Summing these gives us an estimate of the three-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of each solution. VRTX Solution c3000 Solution Total Acquisition Cost $57,117 $76,696 Total Annual Operational Cost $4,294 $4, Total 3-year Operational Cost $12,882 $13, Total Cost of Ownership (3-year) $69,999 $90,057.34

17 Summary Administrators looking to consolidate the servers and storage in their remote or branch office into a single chassis can get four server nodes and 24 drives of shared storage from either of the solutions detailed in this whitepaper. In the tested configurations, however, the solution based on the Dell PowerEdge VRTX shared infrastructure delivered significantly higher storage performance and lower power draw compared to the solution based on the HP BladeSystem c3000 chassis. The VRTX solution s shared storage was not only higher performing, but can be configured in 92% fewer steps and 95% less time than the solution using HP StoreVirtual VSA software, and can be configured using just one tool compared to the nine required to set up VSA. Finally, the Dell solution costs $19,579 less as tested than the HP solution, and would cost $160 less per year to run this sample workload. The goal of this study was to characterize the performance and potential savings the new Dell PowerEdge VRTX solution provides when compared to a similarly configured HP c3000 solution. Actual customer environments will vary, but the relative performance achieved demonstrates the advantages of the PowerEdge VRTX solution and its potential impact to a small, remote or branch office.

18 Appendix A Test methodology BIOS settings Available BIOS settings differed between the two manufacturers. Each blade was tested as it was shipped from the factory, with default settings. For both servers, Intel Turbo Boost Technology was enabled by default, and memory speed was left at the default value of 1333MHz. Both systems defaulted to handling their own power management rather than leaving that function to the operating system. For the Dell PowerEdge M620 server nodes, the following default settings were used: Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch enabled Hardware Prefetcher enabled DCU Streamer Prefetcher enabled DCU IP Prefetcher enabled System Profile set to Performance Per Watt (DAPC) Turbo Boost enabled C1E Enabled C States enabled Memory Patrol Scrub set to Enabled Memory Refresh Rate set to 1x Memory Operating Voltage set to Auto For the HP ProLiant BL460c Gen8 server nodes, the following default settings were used: HP Power Regulator set to HP Dynamic Power Savings Mode Energy/Performance Bias set to Balanced Performance Minimum Processor Idle Power Core State set to C6 State Minimum Processor Idle Power Package State set to Package C6 (non-retention) State HW Prefetch Enabled in BIOS Adjacent Sector Prefetch Enabled in BIOS DCU Prefetcher Enabled in BIOS Dynamic Power Savings Mode Response set to Fast in BIOS Collaborative Power Control Enabled in BIOS Intel Turbo Boost enabled DIMM Voltage Preference set to Optimized for Power in BIOS Operating system tuning On the host installations of Windows Server 2012 Datacenter on each server node, the Hyper-V role was enabled in order to enable the hosting of the virtual machine which executed each workload. Power and temperature configuration Yokogawa WT210 Digital Power Meters were used for the actual power measurements of the solutions. The WT210 units used were each calibrated less than a year prior to the test date to ensure accurate power consumption measurements.

19 Power measurements were collected using Yokogawa s WTViewer Version 8.13 software. Collection was started as each workload was started and the results were averaged to provide a representative picture of power draw while running each workload. To ensure a fair comparison, the systems were mounted near each other in the test racks. The two solutions were run in environments with a temperature difference of less than 1 degree Celsius.

20 Appendix B Server node firmware and drivers Driver/firmware versions PowerEdge M620 Proliant BL460c Gen8 System BIOS I31 03/01/2013 Network drivers Network firmware HBA firmware HBA drivers Video driver Integrated management controller firmware Management controller driver N/A

21 Appendix C Tools required to set up shared storage in the HP c3000 solution Tools Used: Nine HP BladeSystem Onboard Administrator ilo Remote Console HP Option ROM Configuration for Arrays Utility Windows Server Manager - Roles and Features Wizard Hyper-V VSA Appliance installer Hyper-V Manager VSA Centralized Management Console installer VSA Centralized Management Console Windows iscsi initiator Note Used to launch ilo Remote Console for each of four server nodes and two partner devices Used to access partner devices to set up RAID volumes; used to access each server node to set up iscsi initiator Required to configure underlying RAID volumes on each partner device Required to add.net Framework 3.5 feature to Windows Server 2012 on partner devices to allow installation of VSA appliance VM Used to install VSA Appliance VM Used to manage VSA appliance VM Used to install and configure VSA Centralized Management Console software Used to add servers and storage, and create volumes and assign to server nodes Used to mount shared volumes on each server node