Transaction Performance vs. Moore s Law

Similar documents
Asks for clarification of whether a GOP must communicate to a TOP that a generator is in manual mode (no AVR) during start up or shut down.

ECE 588/688 Advanced Computer Architecture II

QuickSpecs. What's New. Models. HP SATA Hard Drives. Overview

Inside look at benchmarks Wim Coekaerts Senior Vice President, Linux and Virtualization Engineering. Wednesday, August 17, 11

ECE 588/688 Advanced Computer Architecture II

TPC Benchmark C Full Disclosure Report for Dell PowerEdge 2900 using Oracle 11g Database Server Standard Edition and Microsoft Windows Server 2003

This report is based on sampled data. Jun 1 Jul 6 Aug 10 Sep 14 Oct 19 Nov 23 Dec 28 Feb 1 Mar 8 Apr 12 May 17 Ju

QuickSpecs. What's New. Models. HP SATA Hard Drives. Overview. HP 6G SATA SmartDrive Carriers

TPC Benchmark C Full Disclosure Report for Dell PowerEdge T710 using Oracle 11g Database Server Standard Edition and Microsoft Windows Server 2003

Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC) TPC Overview

Work to establish standard ENTSOE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE 1

Polycom Advantage Service Endpoint Utilization Report

5 th TPC Technology Conference on Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking TPCTC 2013

Polycom Advantage Service Endpoint Utilization Report

software.sci.utah.edu (Select Visitors)

QuickSpecs. HPE SATA Hard Drives. Overview. HPE Hard Disk Drives

All King County Summary Report

MISO PJM Joint and Common Market Cross Border Transmission Planning

Scope and Sequence Mathematics Grade 2. 1st Quarter (43 Days)

Inter-Domain Routing Trends

First Edition December 2003

Product Life Cycle System-level Products. April, 2016

Improving Perforce Performance At Research In Motion (RIM)

Seattle (NWMLS Areas: 140, 380, 385, 390, 700, 701, 705, 710) Summary

IBM RS/6000 Enterprise Server J50 c/s

Seattle (NWMLS Areas: 140, 380, 385, 390, 700, 701, 705, 710) Summary

Seattle (NWMLS Areas: 140, 380, 385, 390, 700, 701, 705, 710) Summary

HPE Security Data Security. HPE SecureData. Product Lifecycle Status. End of Support Dates. Date: April 20, 2017 Version:

Hewlett-Packard Company

From BigBench to TPCx-BB: Standardization of a Big Data Benchmark

IBM Power 780 Server Model 9179-MHB Using AIX Version 6.1 and DB2 Enterprise 9.5. TPC Benchmark TM C Full Disclosure Report

DAS LRS Monthly Service Report

SPEC Research Group and Big Data Xiao Wei Zhang, Liang Lu (IBM / SPEC RG Big Data WG)

Cisco Systems, Inc. TPC Benchmark H Full Disclosure Report

Compaq Computer Corporation

Benefits of Automatic Data Tiering in OLTP Database Environments with Dell EqualLogic Hybrid Arrays

Proven video conference management software for Cisco Meeting Server

Hewlett-Packard Company

TPC Benchmark TM C Full Disclosure Report

2

The Last Bottleneck: How Parallel I/O can improve application performance

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 3.6

Fluidity Trader Historical Data for Ensign Software Playback

Appendix D: Storage Systems (Cont)

2

TPC Benchmark TM C. Full Disclosure Report. Sequent NUMACenter TM Using DYNIX/ptx and Oracle8 Enterprise Edition TM

2

Power your planet. Optimizing the Enterprise Data Center POWER7 Powers a Smarter Infrastructure

Broadband Rate Design for Public Benefit

Routing the Internet in Geoff Huston APNIC March 2007

Looking for a simple and intuitive solution that allows you to access and manage servers across your entire network?

ADDENDUM #2 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #2252 Institutional Network Service, Data Center Co-location Service, and High-Speed Internet Service

TPC Benchmark H Full Disclosure Report. SPARC T4-4 Server Using Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition with Partitioning

Maximo 76 Cognos Dimensions

Monthly SEO Report. Example Client 16 November 2012 Scott Lawson. Date. Prepared by

Looking for a simple and intuitive solution that allows you to access and manage servers across your entire network?

The Last Bottleneck: How Parallel I/O can attenuate Amdahl's Law

VxRail: Level Up with New Capabilities and Powers GLOBAL SPONSORS

Managing CAE Simulation Workloads in Cluster Environments

UBS Technology Conference 2011 Franki D Hoore - Director European Investor Relations London, March 10, 2011

AMI Applications at SDG&E Metering America March 24, 2009 Ted M. Reguly Smart Meter Program Director SDG&E

HP ProLiant delivers #1 overall TPC-C price/performance result with the ML350 G6

QuickSpecs. HPE Library and Tape Tools. Overview. Features & Benefits. What's New

Hewlett-Packard Company

Section 1.2: What is a Function? y = 4x

High Performance SSD & Benefit for Server Application

Airside Congestion. Airside Congestion

CIS 601 Graduate Seminar. Dr. Sunnie S. Chung Dhruv Patel ( ) Kalpesh Sharma ( )

Performance evaluation and. INF5100 Autumn 2007 Jarle Søberg

Ahsay Online Backup Manager v7 Quick Start Guide for Synology NAS

Hewlett-Packard Company

SPC-1 * results. Silverton Consulting, Inc. StorInt Dispatch

Hewlett Packard Enterprise HPE GEN10 PERSISTENT MEMORY PERFORMANCE THROUGH PERSISTENCE

Kaufman Brothers 13 th Annual Investor Conference

Why You Should Run TPC-DS: A Workload Analysis

MySQL 8.0 Performance: InnoDB Re-Design

SPECjbb2005. Alan Adamson, IBM Canada David Dagastine, Sun Microsystems Stefan Sarne, BEA Systems

HP ProLiant DL580 G7

SCI - software.sci.utah.edu (Select Visitors)

AC System Monitoring Device. Andrew Jarrett Project Advisor: Professor Gutschlag Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering October 1, 2015

IBM Lotus Domino 7 Performance Improvements

TPC BenchmarkTM C Full Disclosure Report for IBM eservertm xseries 460 using IBM DB2 UDB 8.2 and

10th Maintenance Cost Conference Chairman s Report Athens Sept 10& Tiymor Kalimat Manager Technical Procurement Royal Jordanian Airlines

Hewlett-Packard Company

Quarterly Sales (in millions) FY 16 FY 15 FY 14 Q1 $706.8 $731.1 $678.5 Q Q Q

Consolidating OLTP Workloads on Dell PowerEdge R th generation Servers

PRESENTATION TITLE GOES HERE

Sun SPARC Enterprise M9000 Server with Oracle Database 11g Release 2

Software Defined Storage at the Speed of Flash. PRESENTATION TITLE GOES HERE Carlos Carrero Rajagopal Vaideeswaran Symantec

Hewlett-Packard Company

Solid State Performance Comparisons: SSD Cache Performance

2014 Bond Technology Infrastructure Status Report. March 10, 2016

AMD EPYC PRESENTS OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE ON SOFTWARE LICENSING COSTS

RPS Work Item: Beta Testing of Message Standard

Hewlett-Packard Company

On Reshaping of Clustering Coefficients in Degreebased Topology Generators

Peak Season Metrics Summary

HP ProLiant DL380 G7

Solution Pack. Managed Services Virtual Private Cloud Managed Database Service Selections and Prerequisites

Open storage architecture for private Oracle database clouds

Transcription:

Transaction Performance vs. Moore s Law Meikel Poess, Oracle Corporation Raghunath Nambiar, Cisco Systems, Inc. TPCTC 2010 Singapore

Agenda Motivation TPC-C Benchmark Moore s Law vs. Transaction Performance Moore s Law vs. Cost for Transaction Performance Conclusion

TPC-C Benchmark Approved in 1992 as successor of TPC-B Yardstick for comparing transaction processing performance Complete system performance Over 750 results All major server vendors All major server vendors All major and database platforms Variety of architectures

TPC-C Benchmark Configuration Complex configurations 3-tier architecture Powerful database server as back-end

Moore s Law

TPC-C Revision History Date Version Description 22-Jun-92 Draft 6.6 Mail ballot version (proposed standard) 13-Aug-92 Revision 1.0 Standard specification released to the public 1-Jun-93 Revision 1.1 First minor revision 20-Oct-93 Revision 2.0 First major revision 15-Feb-95 Revision 3.0 Second major revision 4-Jun-96 Revision 3.1 Minor changes to rev 3.1. 27-Aug-96 Revision 3.2 Changed mix back to 3.0 values. 12-Sep-96 Revision 3.2.1 Fixed Member list and added index 15-Jan-97 Revision 3.2.2 Added wording for TAB Ids #197, 221 & 224 6-Feb-97 Revision 3.2.3 Added wording for TAB Ids #205, 222 & 226 8-Apr-97 Revision 3.3 New Clauses 2.3.6 & 9.2.2.3 (TAB Id #225) 9-Apr-97 Revision 3.3.1 Wording added for availability date in Clause 8.1.8.3 25-Jun-97 Revision 3.3.2 Editorial changes in Clauses 8.1.6.7 and 9.1.4 16-Apr-98 Revision 3.3.3 Editorial changes in Clauses 2.5.2.2 and 4.2.2 24-Aug-98 Revision 3.4 New Clause 5.7 and changed wording in Clause 8.3 25-Aug-99 Revision 3.5 Modify wording in Clause 7.1.3 18-Oct-00 Revision 5.0 Change pricing, 2 Hour Measurement, 60 Day Space 6-Dec-00 Revision 5.0 7x24 Maintenance, Mail Ballot Draft 26-Feb-01 Revision 5.0 Official Version 5.0 Specification Clause to disallow benchmark specials Additional disclosures New rules around transaction monitor requirements Revision 4 was skipped Pricing change Increased measurement interval from 20 min to 2 11-Dec-02 Revision 5.1 Clause 3.5.4, PDO Limitations, Cluster Durability, Checkpoint Interval, Typographical Errors,Checkpoint Interval, Typographical Errors Modified Clause 7.1.3, Clause 8.3, Clause 7.1.6,and Clause 8.1.8.8. Replaced Clause 8.1.1.2, and Clause 8.1.8.2. Modified Clause 5.4.4 (truncated reported 11-Dec-03 Revision 5.2 MQTh) hours 22-Apr-04 Revision 5.3 Clause 8.3 (9), Executive Summary, Modify 7.1.3 (5),New Comment 4 and 5 to 7.1.3 21-Apr-05 Revision 5.4 Modified Clause 3.3.3.2, Modified Clause 5.3.3, Integrated TPC Pricing Specification 20-Oct-05 Revision 5.5 Modified Clauses 8.1.1.7 and 8.1.9.1, Added Comment to Clause 8.1.1.2 and added Clause 9.2.9 8-Dec-05 Revision 5.6 Modified Clauses 5.5.1.2, 8.1.1.2. Replaced 6.6.6 21-Apr-06 Revision 5.7 Modified Clauses 1.3.1 and 1.4.9. Added Clause 1.4.14 14-Dec-06 Revision 5.8 Modified Clauses 0.2, 1.3.1, 5.2.5.4, 8.1.8.1, 9.2.8.1, 7.1.3,8.3, and 9.2.1. Added Clause 7.2.6 14-Jun-07 Revision 5.9 Modified Clause 7.2.6.1, 7.2.6.2, 8.3.1, 8.3.2 to address substitution rules 17-Apr-08 Revision 5.10 Modified Clauses 1.3.1, 3.1.5, 3.3.2, 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.3.4, 4.3.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.5.6, 8.1.1.2, Added Clause 9.2.9.2. 5-Feb-09 Revision 5.10.1 Editorial changes in Clauses 3.4.2.9,3.5,5.6.4,7.2.6.1,8.1.1.3 11-Feb-10 Revision 5.11 Updated TPC Membership, Editorial change in Clause1.3.1, Modified Clause 6.6.3.7, Modified Clause 7.2.3.1, Modified/Added Clauses 0.1, 5.7.1, 8.1.1.2, and 9.2.9 to support TPC-Energy requirements.

TPC-C Metric [tpmc] TPC-C primary performance metric: Transactions per minute [tpmc] TPC-C price performance metric is: System Cost + 3 year maintenance divided by transactions per minute [$/tpmc] System size range widely Single, one processor server with few disks to large clusters with thousands of disks Consequently performance varies from hundreds to millions of tpmc Normalized performance metric NtpmC = tpmc divided by the number of processors (sockets)

NtpmC for Years 1993 to 2010 1000000 100000 10000 1000 Average NtpmC per Year 100 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Publication Year

NtpmC for Years 1993 to 2010 1000000 Average tpmc per processor Moore's Law 100000 10000 1000 Average NtpmC per Year 100 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Publication Year

Transaction performance vs. Moore s Law, Milestones, 1993 to 2010 1000000 Average tpmc per processor Moore's Law First result using solid state drives SDD Average tpmc/p Processor 100000 10000 1000 First result using 15 Krpm SAS hard drives First result using 15 Krpm SATA hard drives First Linux result First multi core result First clustered result Intel introduces multi threading TPC-C Revision 5 and First x86-64 bit result First storage area network result First result using 7.2 Krpm SATA hard drives TPC-C Revision 3, First Windows result and first x86 result TPC-C Revision 2 100 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Publication Year

NTpmC for Years 1993 to 2010 1000000 Average tpmc per processor Moore's Law First result using solid state drives SDD Average NtpmC per Year 100000 10000 1000 First result using 15 Krpm SAS hard drives First result using 15 Krpm SATA hard drives First Linux result First multi core result First clustered result Intel introduces multi threading TPC-C Revision 5 and First x86-64 bit result First storage area network result First result using 7.2 Krpm SATA hard drives TPC-C Revision 3, First Windows result and first x86 result TPC-C Revision 2 100 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Publication Year

TPC-C Price-Performance Trend 10000 Price per NtpmC Moore's Law 1000 TPC-C Revision 2 Price per NtpmC 100 10 1 TPC-C Revision 3, First Windows result and first x86 result First clustered result First result using 7.2 Krpm SATA hard drives First storage area network result First result using 15 Krpm SATA hard drives TPC-C Revision 5 and First x86-64 bit result Intel introduces multi threading First multi core result First Linux result First result using 15 Krpm SAS hard drives First result using solid state drives SDD 0.1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Publication Year

Conclusion TPC-C performance improvements over 18 years are remarkably similar to Moore s Law TPC-C price-performance also follows Moore s Law Topics of debate Can TPC-C performance be attributed solely to processor Can TPC-C performance be attributed solely to processor improvements? Do we need TPC-C benchmarks if performance can be predicted so easily?

Conclusion Cont No, because TPC-C systems: Complete systems that involve many components (Server, Storage, Network, Software) The increase in processor speed causes challenges: 1. Performance of other component needs to be increased 2. Components whose performance lagged behind need to be replicated 3. Software has to deal with more concurrency

Conclusion Cont 1. Performance of other components need to be increased, e.g. System BUS Memory (Capacity and performance) IO Subsystem (Controllers, Arrays, Disk Drives, Drivers and Firmware) 2. Components whose performance lagged behind need to be replicated, e.g. Disk drives: disk per processor increased from 12 to over 100 3. Software (OS,DBMS) has to deal with more concurrency, e.g. Multiple Cores Large user counts Semaphore contention Locking