Sie sind auf Seite 1von 46

The Advantage of IBM Power Systems

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Systems continues a 7+ year run of growth


Sun SPARC and HP/Itanium continue in decline
UNIX Server Rolling Four Quarter Average Revenue Share

Source: IDC Quarterly Server Tracker 2Q09 release, September 2009

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

What drives Power Systems growth?

1
2
3
3

Power Scale-up / out / within leadership

Power Virtualization leadership

SPARC, PA-RISC, Itanium and now


x86 users are moving to Power

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Scale-up, Scale-out


and Scale-within leadership

Over four decades of running the largest, most mission-critical applications


Power Systems continue leadership
in the primary requirements for large
scale computing
Efficient Scalability
Performance
Reliability, Availability, and
Serviceability
Manageability

8-64 core systems ARE Scale-up computing - where other x86 vendors are untested
4

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Xeon 7500 will extend Nehalem architecture to four & eight socket systems
A MONSTER CHIP IS COMING. The next generation of MP processor is targeted
for production later this year, and by all accounts it is going to be a monster.
Nehalem-EX is part of the Nehalem family of processors, but compared to its siblings
it has the highest cores/threads count, largest shared cache, highest CPU-to-CPU
bandwidth, highest I/O bandwidth, highest memory capacity, highest memory
bandwidth, greatest scalability, and highest level of
Reliability/Availability/Serviceability. Its expected to bring a gargantuan,
unprecedented leap in capabilities and performance--the biggest leap in all of Xeon
product history.
from a blog posted by Matt_K on Jun 8, 2009 5:45:18 PM available at www.intel.com
Xeon 5500 vs Xeon 5400
per socket or per core

Xeon 7500 vs Xeon 7400 per


socket

Database Transactions

2.5

2.5

Integer throughput

1.7

1.7

Floating point throughput

2.2

2.2

Memory

2.3

2.0

Memory Bandwidth

3.5

9.0

Comparison according to
Intel

Source: Intel Server Update, May 26, 2009 available at http://download.intel.com/pressroom/pdf/nehalem-ex.pdf

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

The 2007 570 is 28% faster than 2010 Xeon 5570 on TPC-C
The Latest Power 570 5.0GHz system is even faster
Virtualized Power performance beats Native Xeon

For complete TPCC results, go to


www.tpc.org

tpmC
4.7GHz IBM Power 570
(8 chips, 16 cores, 32 threads)
HP ProLiant DL370 G6
(2 chips, 8 cores, 16 threads)
6

Price / tpmC

Data base

Systems Availability

1,616,162

3.54 USD

Enterprise

11/21/07

> 21 months ago

631,766

1.08 USD

Standard

03/30/09

>4 months ago


2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

POWER6 beats Intels best on per core performance


Database & Web application server licensing benefits
from better per core performance

See slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Systems offer unmatched scalability


>9.5 times the Xeon 5500 throughput for OLTP
>4 times the Xeon 7500 throughput for integer

See slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Its about the system not just the chip


Power Systems offers balanced systems design with the bandwidth
to get the most performance and scalability from the processor

See slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Systems offer near-linear scalability

Balanced systems design allows for


linear performance as core-count and
utilization increases

10

See slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

ITIC Survey says Power Systems with AIX deliver 99.997% uptime
- 54% of IT executives and managers say that they require 99.99% or better availability for their applications

Power Systems with AIX delivers the best


RAS of UNIX, Linux, Windows choices
1. Availability: The least amount of
downtime
15 minutes a year
2.3 times better than the closest
UNIX competitor
more than 10X better than
Windows
2. Reliability: The fewest unscheduled
outages
less than one outage per year
3. Serviceability: The fastest patch time
11 minutes to apply a patch
Source: Network World, dated July 14, 2009, reports on the 2009 ITIC Global Server Hardware & Server OS Reliability Survey Results

11

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

So why would anyone buy an Itanium server?


THE RECENT LAUNCH of Intel's Dunnington based six-core Xeon
processors won't spell the end for the Itanium family.
Despite the significant performance gains of the new x86 based
Xeon's, the company has confirmed that Itanium continues to be
a viable choice for some customers primarily due to the
'Reliability Availability Serviceability' (RAS) features
implemented in the VLIW based Itaniums.
Joachim Aertebjerg, Intel's Server Product Line director. quoted in
Dunnington won't sink Itanic says Intel, By Ian Williams, Thursday,
18 September 2008, 09:11
Nehalem-EX will add new reliability, availability, and serviceability
(RAS) features traditionally found in the companys Intel Itanium
processor family, such as Machine Check Architecture (MCA)
recovery.
Intel Previews Intel Xeon Nehalem-EX Processor, May 26, 2009
Press Briefing
12

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Systems RAS is designed for the toughest applications


from the same people who defined what mainframe-class
means
RAS Feature

POWER6

SPARC

Integrity

Xeon

Live Partition Mobility

Yes

No

No

Yes

Live Application Mobility

Yes

No

No

No

Partition Availability priority

Yes

No

No

No

OS independent First Failure Data Capture

Yes

No

No

No

Redundant System Interconnect

No

Yes

No

No

Memory Keys

Yes

No

No

No

Processor Instruction Retry

Yes

Yes

No

No

Alternate Processor Recovery

Yes

No

No

No

Dynamic Processor Deallocation

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Dynamic Processor Sparing

Yes

Yes2

Yes2

No

Chipkill

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Redundant Memory

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Application/Partition RAS

System RAS

Processor RAS

Memory RAS

I/O RAS
Extended Error Handling

#1,2,3 - See POWER6 RAS in backup; See the following URLs for addition
details:http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/availability.html
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/virtualization.html

13

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Common management architecture and components to


maximize resource utilization across the enterprise
Integrated visibility, control & automation across
heterogeneous business and technology assets
Align IT operations with the business
Govern and control the business
Optimize the business
Detailed platform & virtualization management of IBM systems
Consolidated management across systems, networks and storage
Integrated physical and virtual management across platforms
Automated physical and virtual provisioning

Platform
Management

Virtualization
Management

Service
Management

Integrated management to enable


the delivery of critical business services
14

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Scale-up, Scale-out


and Scale-within leadership

Over four decades of running the largest, most mission-critical applications


Power Systems continue leadership in the primary requirements for large scale
computing

Efficient Scalability
Performance
RAS
Manageability

*
*
*
*

>9.5 times the systems throughput of Xeon 5500


28% more OLTP throughput per core
Best reliability, best availability, best serviceability
The glue that lets you convert capability to service

IBM Power Systems has proven experience in scale-up, scale-out and scale-within
computing providing predictable, consistent performance.
15

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power Virtualization leadership


Celebrating 10 years of Power virtualization.

Power Systems continue leadership in


the primary requirements for
consolidation
Choice of consolidating within an
operating environment (OE) or
consolidating multiple OEs
All applications run in a virtualized
environment
Low overhead virtualization
Balanced scalability for a wide variety
of applications
Manageability

1967
IBM
develops
hypervisor
for VM on
mainframe

1973
IBM
announces
physical
partitioning

1987
IBM
announces
LPAR

1999

2004

2007

IBM
announces
LPAR on
POWER

IBM intros
POWER
Hypervisor

IBM
announces
Live
Partition
Mobility

x86 virtualization is developing and dependent on pieces from multiple vendors.


16

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

The challenge of scale out computing


Typical serving running a single application is
< 20% utilized

Configuration planned for growth


(20% unused?)

What you pay for

Configuration planned for peaks


(50% unused?)

System waits for I/O and memory


access even when it is working
(20% unused?)

What you get

Single workload on a single system

Average Utilization: 20.7%


Peak: 79%

80% of the hardware, software, maintenance, floor space, and energy


that you pay for, is wasted
17

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Reduce cost: Why is scalability important?

The #1 reason IT managers deploy virtualization solutions is workload consolidation


Put simply, the more workloads that can be encapsulated within VMs and combined
onto a single server, the higher the consolidation ratio and greater the cost reduction
The integrated combination of POWER architecture and PowerVM makes possible far
higher consolidation ratios than the x86 architecture and VMware vSphere

18

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

IBM Confidential

Reduce cost: PowerVM delivers superior scalability to


maximize consolidation and drive down IT costs

VMware ESX 3.5

VMware ESX 4.0

(in VMware Infrastructure 3)

(in VMware vSphere 4)

64

64 GB

255 GB

4096 GB

Virtual NICs per VM

10

256

CPUs per physical server

32

64

64

256 GB

1024 GB

4096 GB

Scalability Factors
Virtual CPUs per VM
Memory per VM

Memory per physical


server

PowerVM

Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

19

IBM Power Systems

Reduce cost: Scalability of virtual CPUs

VMware vSphere 4
No more than 8 virtual CPUs can be assigned to a single VM (up from 4 in prior version)
The 8 virtual CPUs option is only available in the high-end Enterprise Plus edition
This constraint limits the type of high-end workloads that can be virtualized
Note: It does not matter if more than 8 CPU cores are available on the physical host
(Example: a four-socket Nehalem EX x86 system will have 32 total cores, but a single
VM cannot be configured to use all 32 of those cores)
PowerVM
Can assign as many CPU cores as are available on the physical host
(Example: a VM (LPAR) can use all 64 cores on a Power 595)
Each virtual CPU can run two threads, resulting in a maximum of 128 threads per VM
Result: A more effective solution for CPU-intensive workloads

Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

20

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Improve service: PowerVM delivers superior flexibility to


optimize IT resource utilization and boost responsiveness

VMware ESX 3.5

VMware ESX 4.0

(in VMware Infrastructure 3)

(in VMware vSphere 4)

Dynamic virtual CPU


changes in VM

No

Add (but not Remove)

Yes

Dynamic memory
changes in VM

No

Add (but not Remove)

Yes

Dynamic I/O device


changes in VM

No

No

Yes

Direct access to I/O


devices from within VM

No

Some (with Nehalem)

Yes

Maximum simultaneous
live migrations

Flexibility Factors

PowerVM

Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

21

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Every Power Systems benchmark published since July, 2004 has


been run in a virtualized environment with the hypervisor active
Over 70 leadership benchmarks published in last 5 years

22

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Improve service: Consolidating diverse


enterprise workloads
VMware vSphere 4
Only supports native x86-based workloads mainly Windows and Linux/x86
No plans to extend support to workloads created for other architectures
Management tool (vCenter) is limited to an x86-only subset of IT infrastructure
Perpetuates silos of virtualization that require multiple management tools
PowerVM
Supports all workloads built for AIX, IBM i and Linux (including Linux/x86)
IBM Systems Director can manage VMware, Xen, Hyper-V, KVM, PowerVM, and
z/VM virtualized workloads with VMControl
Scales to support the most demanding mission-critical workloads

Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

23

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Scale within simplifies the data center


Server 0

Server 1

SCALE-OUT:
Cables, routers, & switches are:
additional points of failure
difficult to keep track of
expensive to maintain

Server 2

Server 3

Server 4

SAN Switch 0

SAN Switch 1

Disk Farm 1

Disk Farm 2

Server 0
Part. 0

Part. 1

Part. 2

VIOS Partition 0

SCALE-WITHIN:
Up to 90% reduction in cables,
switch volume, adapters
24

Server 5

Server 6

Server 7

Server 1
Part. 3

Part. 4

Part. 5

Part. 6

Part. 7

VIOS Partition 1

SAN Switch 0

SAN Switch 1

Disk Farm 1

Disk Farm 2

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

1.
2.
3.

4.

Power Virtualization leadership


Only PowerVM allows you to completely virtualize your datacenter

Power Systems continue leadership in


primary consolidation requirements:
Support for virtualize everything including
large production workloads
Built in virtualization so you get the
performance you expect
Infrastructure designed for virtualization with
superior bandwidth to support a wide
variety of applications
Multi-platform manageability to support
Power, z, and x systems with a single
management system

A 40-year tradition continues

1967
IBM
develops
hypervisor
for VM on
mainframe

1973
IBM
announces
physical
partitioning

1987
IBM
announces
LPAR

1999

2004

2007

IBM
announces
LPAR on
POWER

IBM intros
POWER
Hypervisor

IBM
announces
Live
Partition
Mobility

For over 10 years, IBM Power Systems has been fine-tuning highly integrated systems
designed from the ground up for industrial strength virtualization.
25

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

SPARC, PA-RISC, Itanium and now


x86 users are moving to Power

Clients are migrating to Power


Migration expertise
Dependable roadmap
Consolidation value

As SPARC and Itanium decline, UNIX clients


are likely to have two major choices - Power or x86.
26

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Competitive migrations to IBM Power


More than 1,750 IBM Migration Factory wins to date
Competitive displacements

2009 momentum
Wins from Sun grew 111% QTQ
Wins from HP grew 44% QTQ

89% of migrations from Sun and HP


(FY2006 through 1H2009)

27

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Save up to 93% in annual energy costs!


By consolidating 34 16-core Sun V890s into
ONE rack of Power 570 systems
--Reduce floor space required by 93%
--Reduce processing cores by over 88%
34 Sun V890s
(@ 20% utilization)
544 total cores @ 2.1 GHz
Over 109 sq. ft. of floor space required
up to 1,442 MWh annual energy

One Rack of Power 570s


(@ 60% utilization)
64 total cores @ 4.2 GHz
Only 1 Rack 7.6 sq. ft of floor space
Save up to 1,344 MWh annually
up to $195k in energy savings per year!
See Power 570 power and efficiency claims and Power 570 consolidation
claims* charts in backup for full substantiation details.

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Consolidate up to 39 non-virtualized Sun SPARC Enterprise


M5000 servers into one IBM Power 595 server
39 Sun SPARC Enterprise
M5000 Servers*

One IBM Power 595 server*

Reduce maximum energy


use by up to 84%
Save up to 80% of the
floor space
624 total cores @ 2.4 GHz
Using an average of 20%maximum
capacity
182,676 VA Maximum Power
requirement**

64 total cores @ 5.0 GHz


Using an average of 60% of
maximum capacity
27,700 Maximum WATTS**

See page notes on 39 to 1 for detail


2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Save up to $840,000 and 83% of the energy use!

By consolidating on the Power 560 Express instead of the Sun M5000


-- Use 1/5 the rack space

Coming From:
2 Racks: 13 V490 servers
Maximum energy requirement of
22,750 WATTs

List Price of $140,955


Maximum energy requirement of
2,400 WATTs
8U - One Power 560 Express
server

M5000 supports no more than 4


dynamic domains per system and
would require Four M5000 servers
to consolidate 13 V490s
List price of $981,360
Maximum energy requirement of
14,952 WATTs
1 rack of 4 M5000 servers

See Power 560 versus M5000 consolidation


substantiation in backup for substantiation detail.

If Solaris Containers could be used:


Two M5000 servers required: List price
of $490,680 and 7,296 Watts
2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Energen Corporation reduces costs with migration from Sun to


IBM Power Systems
Client requirements
Improve system performance and support for the companys
SAP ERP (enterprise resource planning) application by
consolidating its sprawling 20-unit Sun server environment
Reduce the total cost of ownership by cutting its licensing
costs for the Oracle databases, which support the
companys SAP system

Solution
Migrated its SAP ERP system and Oracle databases onto
two IBM Power servers [570s]
Engaged IBM Business Partner Mainline Information
Systems to demonstrate how leveraging virtualization
technology could cut Oracle licensing costs

Benefits
Reduces Oracle licensing costs by 40 percent, contributing
to US$500,000 in annual savings
Provides a more efficient, available infrastructure that
combines lower capital and operational costs with better
performance and flexibility
Consumes significantly less floor space and power
31

We certainly made a saving


on hardware costs, but the
reduction in Oracle licensing
costs was the main contributor
to the total US$500,000
annual savings we achieved
by migrating to IBM for our
SAP software environment.
Ron Payne,
Director of
Infrastructure Services

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

SAP Application Servers are exploding as environments grow in complexity


DEV
Multiple Servers for each
SAP System
Landscape are required
by SAP

TEST
QA

SAP System
1

2001
1 landscape
59 batch jobs
400 users

32

landscapes
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users

Multiple system
landscapes per SAP
functional solution

Multiple operational stages per System

2003
2
2
124
850

PROD

2005
5
4
3
198
1400

landscapes
parallel rollouts
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users

2006/7
9
6
8
310
2800

landscapes
parallel rollouts
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users

2008+
14
9
8
412
3100

landscapes
parallel rollouts
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users
2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Osram Sylvania consolidates SAP environment


from Alpha & x86 to Power
Business challenge:
Replace 50 legacy HP Alpha and Windows servers running missioncritical SAP applications with a flexible, highly reliable system that would
remain viable for more than five years and offer lower operational costs.

Solution:
Lowered operational costs and gained infrastructure flexibility when they
teamed with IBM and SAP to migrate their SAP ERP applications to the
IBM Power Systems platform
SAP ERP 6.0
SAP NetWeaver Business Information Warehouse 3.1
IBM Power Systems models 570, 550
IBM AIX operating system
PowerHA for AIX
Oracle DB
IBM Global Business Services

We were convinced that


IBM offered the best
support for the transition,
the best technology for
operations, and the best
strategy for long-term
development.

Benefits:

Batch times reduced by a factor of five


User response times cut in half
Service to the business dramatically improved
Fewer servers means lower administration, maintenance, energy,
cooling and license costs
33

Jeffrey Ruck
Director of IT Infrastructure Services
OSRAM SYLVANIA

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Internet Retail Innovation Supported


by Managed Infrastructure Growth
Business challenge:
Move to a platform that would support Novell SUSE
Linux applications and allow them to quickly scale up
and stay one step ahead of the growing customer
base

Benefits:
In same POWER-based architecture footprint
since 2005, scaling up to meet demand that has
taken them to a projected US$1 billion in gross
merchandise sales during 2008.
Plans to use Live Partition Mobility on new POWER6
processor architecture for new application
development and testing
http://www.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/ARBN-7JZLCT?OpenDocument&Site=corp&cty=en_us

34

Nothingperformslike
IBMPowerasour
databaseserver.Bestof
all,ourinfrastructure
remainssimpleevenas
weaddmoreprocessing
capacitytomeetgrowth.
KrisOngbongan,
SystemsManager,
Zappos.com

Power = Openness +
Scalability
2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

SPARC, PA-RISC, Itanium and x86 users


are moving to Power

Thousands are moving to Power


1. Migration expertise
2. Power Rewards to offset migration
cost
3. Proven dependable roadmap
4. Proven utilization for maximum
consolidation
5. The best choice for UNIX users

Clients trust the migration experience of IBM and


the proven capability of Power Systems to handle their toughest workloads.
35

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

IBM Power Systems are the right choice.

1
2
3
36

IBM is an expert in scale-up and scalewithin computing.


IBM virtualization is years ahead
of any x86 or UNIX alternative.

UNIX clients trust IBM migration


expertise and Power roadmaps.

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance

Sources for the biggest leap falls short


Comparison to Xeon 5500 and Xeon 7400 for integer throughput, floating point throughput and DB transactions
based on SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate2006, and TPC-C benchmark results shown on chart Power to Xeon
substantiation. Comparison to Xeon 7500 based on Intel projections of Xeon 7500 to Xeon 7400. Note: This is not
intended to be a projection of the benchmark results. Comparisons to Itanium based on best results of any HP
Integrity system from Compare UNIX Systems, Performance at http://www03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. All results are current as of August 3, 2009.
Sources for unmatched scalability
Comparison to Xeon 5500 and Xeon 7400 for integer throughput, floating point throughput and DB transactions
based on SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate2006, and TPC-C benchmark results shown on chart Power to Xeon
substantiation. Comparison to Xeon 7500 based on Intel projections of Xeon 7500 to Xeon 7400. Note: This is not
intended to be a projection of the benchmark results. Comparisons to Itanium based on HP Integrity Superdome
results from Compare UNIX Systems, Performance at http://www03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. IBM results were for the IBM Power 595. All
results are current as of August 3, 2009.
Sources for Scalability is about systems
Source: HP QuickSpecs available at www.hp.com, Dell Datasheets and Dell PowerEdge Servers
PRESS KIT - Intel Xeon Processor 5500 Series available at www.intel.com and the POWER6 TechEx
presentation. All data is current as of June 29, 2009.
Sources for efficient linear scalability based on SAP SD 2-tier benchmark using SAP ERP release 6.0 (without the Unicode
extensions). Benchmark detail and results are shown at Compare UNIX Systems, Performance at http://www03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. All results are current as of August 3, 2009

37

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power to Xeon Substantiation

Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of May 26, 2009. The results are the
best results for the systems compared.
SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. For the latest SPEC
benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org

Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of May 26, 2009. The results are the
best results for the systems compared.
For the latest TPC-C benchmark results, visit http://www.tpc.org
38

2009 IBM Corporation

Power 570 power and efficiency claims


IBM Power Systems

Comparisons between the IBM Power 570, HP Integrity Superdome, HP Integrity


rx8640, Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000, Sun Fire E6900 and Sun Fire V890.
All systems were compared based on maximum processor configurations unless recommended wattage was
available for other configurations. Maximum configurations were used because that is the data point for which
power requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have different performance per watt
metrics.
Performance/watt is calculated by dividing the performance metric by the recommended maximum power usage for
site planning. Actual power used by the systems will be less than this value for all of the systems.
This information for the Power 570 is in "Model 9117-MMA server specifications" available at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/systems/scope/hw/topic/iphdx/sa76-0091.pdf. The power requirement for
the Power 570 is 5600 watts.
The information for the HP Integrity Superdome is in QuickSpecs HP Integrity Superdome Servers 16-processor,
32-processor, and 64-processor Systems available at
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/Division/Division.html#11715. The power requirement for the 64
core Superdome is 12,196 watts.
The information for the rx8640 is in "QuickSpecs HP Integrity rx8640 Server" available at
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12471_div/12471_div.HTM. HP defines multiple maximum power
ratings. This calculation uses the Marked Electrical for server which is consistent with the maximum selected for the
other servers. The power requirement for the rx8640 is 5400 watts.
The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 Server Site
Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-4203-12/21ch3p.html. The power requirement for the
M8000 is 10,500 watts.
The information for the Sun Fire E6900 Server is in the Sun Fire E6900/E4900 Systems Site Planning Guide
available at http://docs.sun.com/source/817-4117-14/environment.html. The power requirement for the E6900 is
9,410 watts.
The information for the Sun Fire V890 Server is in the Sun Fire V490/V890 Servers with UltraSPARC IV+
2100MHz CPU/Memory Modules Supplement available at http://dlc.sun.com/pdf//820-0714-10/820-0714-10.pdf.
The power requirement for the V890 is 4,843 watts.

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

Power 570 consolidation claims

* The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 5.67X
was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPEC results source: www.spec.org . Power 570 (32-core, 16
chips, 2 cores per chip, 4.2 GHz) SPECjbb2005 1,390,087 bops, 86,880 bops/JVM as of 10/7/2008; Sun Fire V890
(16-core, 8 chips, 2 cores per chip) 2.1 GHz, SPECjbb2005 244,846 bops, 30,606 bops/JVM as of 9/25/2008. A
virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by
Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. A factor of 2X was
used to represent the ability to install two 32-core Power 570 systems in a single rack. Power consumption figures of
5600 W for the IBM Power 570 and 4843 W for the Sun Fire V890 were based on the maximum rates published by
IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively. Air conditioning power requirement estimated at 50% of system power
requirement. Energy cost of $.0971 per kWh is based on 2008 YTD US Average Retail price to commercial customers
per US DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html as of 9/25/2008. The reduction in floor
space, power, cooling and software costs depends on the specific customer, environment, application requirements,
and the consolidation potential. Actual numbers of virtualized systems supported will depend on workload levels for
each replaced system.
** The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 1.7 was
applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPEC results source: www.spec.org . Power 570 (32-core, 16 chips, 2
cores per chip, 4.2 GHz) SPECjbb2005 1,390,087 bops, 86,880 bops/JVM as of 10/7/2008; Sun SPARC Enterprise
M8000 (64-core, 16 chips, 4 cores per chip) 2.52 GHz, SPECjbb2005 817,158 bops, 51,072 bops/JVM as of
9/25/2008. A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies
conducted by Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. A factor
of 2X was used to represent the ability to install two 32-core Power 570 systems in a single rack. Power consumption
figures of 5600 W for the IBM Power 570 and 10,500 W for the Sun M8000 were based on the maximum rates
published by IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively. Air conditioning power requirement estimated at 50% of system
power requirement. Energy cost of $.0971 per kWh is based on 2008 YTD US Average Retail price to commercial
customers per US DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html as of 9/25/2008. The
reduction in floor space, power, cooling and software costs depends on the specific customer, environment, application
requirements, and the consolidation potential. Actual numbers of virtualized systems supported will depend on
workload levels for each replaced system.
2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

notes on 39 for 1
*

The number of Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers that a single IBM Power 595 server could replace was calculated based on
SPECint_rate2006 results. The peak result for the M5000 is for a 2.4GHz system with 16 processors (chips) and 2 cores per chip. It has
a result of 158. The M5000 result can be found at www.spec.org. It is current as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 server result is
for a 5.0GHz system with 32 processor (chips) and 2 cores per chip. That result was submitted on April 8, 2008. It will also be posted on
www.spec.org. It has a peak result of 2,080 users. Estimating cumulative capacity as the number of servers times the throughput result
of a single server, the cumulative capacity of the 13 Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers is 13 times 158 users or 2,054. The capacity
of the single Power 595 server is greater than the cumulative capacity of the 13 M5000 servers.
A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by Alinean
available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. That is; the utilization rate for the non-virtualized
capacity of the M5000 server is estimated to be 20% and the utilization rate for the virtualized capacity of the Power 595 is estimated to
be 60%. The used M5000 capacity is therefore estimated as 39*158 * 20% = 1,232.4. The Power 595 server used capacity is estimated
as 2,080* 60% =1,248. Therefore the capacity of the Power 595 server at 60% is > than the cumulative capacity of the 39 M5000
servers at 20% utilization .

SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance
Evaluation Corporation. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org

** Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 server Maximum AC power consumption of 4,684 VA was sourced from Sun SPARC Enterprise
M4000/M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide available at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-2205-10/Chap2_environ.html as of March 25,
2008. The IBM Power 595 server maximum power requirement is 27,700 VA.
The savings from using the Power 595 were calculated by multiplying the M5000 maximum by 39 for a total of 182,676VA. The Power
595 server maximum requirement of 27,700 VA is 15.16% of the 182,676.
*** The Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 is a rack system. The calculation of floor space here was based on using .1 of Sun Rack 1000-42 for
each M5000. The dimensions of the Sun Rack 1000-42 are 23.5 wide x 39.4 deep. They were sourced for the Sun Rack 1000-42 Tech
Specs available at http://www.sun.com/servers/rack/1000-42/specs.xml#anchor1 as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 is 30.5 wide
x 58.5 deep for a system with up to 3 I/O drawers.
The savings from using the Power 595 were calculated by multiplying the M5000 floor space by 39 for a total of 62.69 squarefeet.
2009The
IBM Corporation
square footage for the Power 595 is 12.39 square feet which is 19.76% of 62.69.

IBM Power Systems

Power 560 Performance and Efficiency Substantiation


Substantiation:
Notes:
1. Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of September 12, 2008. The SPECint_rate2006 results can be found at www.spec.org. The Power 560 Express final
publication will be Submitted on October, 7 2008. All systems were compared based on maximum processor configuration because that is the data point for which power
requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have better performance per WATT metrics.
2. SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark
results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of October 6, 2008. The comparison presented above is based on the best performing 8-chip servers currently
shipping by IBM, Sun, and HP respectively. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org.
3. SPECint_rate2006 Peak/core results are:
IBM Power 560 Express with 8 chips and 16 cores and two threads per core with a projected result of 363.
Sun Microsystems Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 with 8 chips, 32 cores and 2 threads per core with a result of 264.
HP Integrity rx7640 with 8 chips and 16 cores and 2 threads per core with a result of 201
4. Performance per Watt is calculated by dividing the performance by the maximum system power.

5. Space for the Power 560 is 8 rack units. The Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 is 10 rack units. This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications"
available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise
M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. HP integrity rx7640 is 10 rack units and specifications are available at
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12470_div/12470_div.PDF
6, Performance per watt is calculated by dividing the performance in the table above by the recommended maximum power for site planning. Actual power used by the systems will be
Source: less
http://www.spec.org/
than this value for all of the systems. This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-

Power 560
Express POWER6 results will be
submitted
on October
7, 2008
01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss
- search
for Power
560. The
power for the 560 is 2,400 WATTs. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun

42

SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. The power requirement for the M5000 is 3,738 WATTS. HP
integrity rx7640 is 2128 watts and specifications are available at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12470_div/12470_div.PDF
2009 IBM Corporation

PRELIMINARY Power 560 BENCHMARK RESULTS

IBM Power Systems

Power 560 Consolidation Substantiation


Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of October 6, 2008. The SPECint_rate2006 results can be found at www.spec.org. The Power 560 Express final publication will be
Submitted on October, 7 2008. All systems were compared based on maximum processor configuration because that is the data point for which power requirements are defined. Other
configurations of these systems could have better performance per WATT metrics.
SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results
stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of October 7, 2008. The comparison presented above is based on a consolidation of a legacy 8-core Sun UltraSPARC IV
servers into a 16 core IBM Power 560. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org.
SPECintRate_2006 Peak/core results are:
POWER6: IBM Power 560 Express with 8 chips, and 16 cores @ 3.6 GHz and 2 threads per core with a projected result of 363.
SPARC: Sun V490 with 4 chips, 8 cores @ 2.1GHz and 1 thread per core with a result of 78.
*The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors:
A performance factor of 4.6X was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPECint_rate2006. Power 560 (16-core, 8 chips, 2 cores per chip, 3.6 GHz) 363, submitted on 10/07/2008;
Sun Fire V490 (8-core, 4 chips, 2 cores per chip) 2.1 GHz, SPECint_rate2006 of 78. The performance factor is simply the SPECint_rate2006 result of the Power 560 Express divided by
the result of the competitive Sun V490 server.
A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilization assumptions derived from an Alinean white paper on server consolidation. The tool assumes 19%
utilization of existing servers and 60% utilization of new servers. Source - www.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf.
Calculation Summary: the 560 to the Sun V490 performance ratio is 4.6 Multiply by 3 for the virtualization factor. Hence, 4.6 * 3 = 13.9 servers rounded to 13 V490 server can be consolidated
into 1 560 server.
The Sun V490 is 5U in height and 8 can fit into a 42U rack. The 560 is 8U in height and 5 560 systems can fit in a 42U rack.
One 560 system is 16 cores per system. A Sun V490 has 8 cores per system. 13 systems multiplied by 8 cores is 104 cores. 92% more cores.
Power consumption figures of 2400W for the IBM Power 560 and 1750W for the Sun Fire V490 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively.
This information for the 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. Sun Fire V490 Maximum AC
power consumption of 1750 WATTs was sourced from Sun Fire V490/V890 Servers with UltraSPARC IV+, 2100MHz CPU/Memory Modules Supplement available at
http://dlc.sun.com/pdf/820-0714-10/820-0714-10.pdf as of September, 2008.

43

2009 IBM Corporation

PRELIMINARY p550 BENCHMARK RESULTS

IBM Power Systems

Power 560 versus M5000 Consolidation Substantiation


Power 560 Express Pricing: $140,955
Power 560 Express Server, Includes 16 Core 3.6 GHz POWER6 Processors 64GB System Memory, 4 x 146 GB SAS Disk Drives, 1 DVD-ROM, 2
Gb Ethernet Ports, and 4 Power Supplies (220 V with N+N Redundancy)

Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 pricing: $181,340 + $64,000 (64GB of memory) = $245,340 times 4 servers = $981,360
Sun Pricing: http://shop.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewConfigurationsList;pgid=tyL4UHemJpNSR08nlpFb_str0000crh3TBti;sid=anhg_kXDZHdg_Q0QzxYo-6pe3_pCFlSyC9jX-C_XKwbj_gYJOHk=?
ProxyProductRefID=DUMMY3--HID-240460404@Sun_NorthAmericaSun_Store_US&CatalogCategoryID=hudIBe.dZb4AAAEUWEg5G_c2&ShowAllProducts=false
Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server, Includes 8 Quad-Core 2.4 GHz SPARC64 VII Processors, 4 CPU Board with 2 CPUs each 5 MB On Chip L2
Cache, and 64 GB System Memory (4 Memory Modules with 8 x 2 GB DDR2 DIMMs), 4 x 146 GB SAS Disk Drives, 1 DVD-ROM, 4 Gb
Ethernet Ports, 2 I/O Trays with 4 PCI-e and 1 PCI-X Slots, 4 Power Supplies (110 V or 220 V with N+N Redundancy), RoHS-5 Compliant
Quantity 4 SELX2B1Z $ 16,000.00
Sun SPARC Enterprise Server Memory Module, 8 x 2 GB DIMMs, 16 GB total memory, for SPARC Enterprise M4000 and M5000 servers, RoHS-5
Compliant
Power Consumption: This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The power for the 560 is 2,400 WATTs. The information for the Sun SPARC
Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. The power requirement for the M5000 is 3,738 WATTS. Actual power used by the systems will
be less than this value for all of the systems. Four M5000 servers times 3,738 watts equals 14,952. 83% more power than one Power 560 at
2,400 Watts.
20% of Sun V490 SPECint_rate2006 of 78 is 15.6. 60% utilization of the SPARC enterprise M5000 using SPECintrate_2006 is 158.4. Hence, the
M5000 using Solaris containers can support 10 Sun Fire V490 servers. It would require two M5000 servers to consolidate 13 V490s using
Solaris containers.

44

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems

# Cores

GHz

IBM
System

POWER Result

Second Place
Result

POWER
Faster By

TPC-C 64-core

64

595

6,085,166

2,382,032

155%

Fujitsu Primequest

TPC-C 32-core

32

1.90

p5-595

1,601,784

1,354,086

18.2%

Fujitsu PQuest

TPC-C 16-core

16

4.7

570

1,616,162

579,814

178.7%

HP DL585

Benchmarks

Second Place System (non-IBM)

TPC-C 4-core

4.7

570

404,462

230,569

75.4%

HP rx6600

SAP SD 3-tier Overall

32

1.90

p5-595

168,300

100,000

68.3%

HP Superdome 64-core

SAP SD 2-tier 16-core

16

4.7

570

8,000

4170

91.8%

Sun T5240

SAP SD 2-tier 4-core

4.7

570

2,035

1,218

67.1%

HP BL480c

SAP SD 2-tier 2-core

2.10

p5-505

680

597

13.9%

HP ProLiant ML370 3.6 GHz

Oracle Apps Online 11.5.9

1.90

p5-570

15,004

DNP

Oracle Apps. Std. Batch 11.5.9

1.90

p5-570

2,744,000

2,664,000

3.0%

Fujitsu PrimePower 850 (16-core)

SPECint_rate2000 4-core

2.10

p5-550

90.0

123

-26.8%

Dell PowerEdge

SPECfp_rate2000 4-core

2.10

p5-550

149

121

23.1%

Sun Ultra 40

SPECint_rate2000 8-core

2.20

p5-575

200

200

0%

SPECfp_rate2000 8-core

2.20

p5-575

382

214

78.5%

SPECint_rate2000 16-core

16

1.90

p5-575

314

283

11%

SPECfp_rate2000 16-core

16

1.90

p5-575

571

373

53.1%

Bull NovaScale

SPECint_rate2000 32-core

32

1.65

p5-590

529

537

-1.5%

Fujitsu PrimePower 1500

SPECfp_rate2000 32-core

32

1.65

p5-590

870

766

13.6%

Fujitsu Primequest 480

SPECint_rate2000 64-core

64

2.30

p5-595

1,513

1108

36.6%

HP Superdome (1.6 GHz)

SPECfp_rate2000 64-core

64

1.90

p5-595

2,406

1,257

91.4%

SGI Altix 3000

SPECfp2006

595

24.9

16.9

47.3%

HP rx6600

SPECint_rate2006 8-core

550

263

260

1.1%

Sun X2270

SPECfp_rate2006 8-core

550

222

200

11%

Fujitsu RX300

SPECsfs_R1.v3 SMP

2.20

p5-570

169,786

66,235

156.3%

HP AlphaServer GS1280

SPECjbb2005 16-core

16

570

867,989

758,325

14.4%

Tyan TX46

45

Dell PowerEdge/Fujitsu Primergy


Sun X4600
Fujitsu PrimePower

POWER vs.
Best
Competitive
Result
Comparing the best
available results vs.
POWER

64-core (32/64/128) IBM Power 595 TPC-C result of 6,085,166 tpmC,


$2.81/tpmC, avail. 12/10/08
64-core (32/64/128) Fujitsu Primequest TPC-C result of 2,382,032 tpmC,
$3.76/tpmC, avail. 12/04/08
32-core IBM p5-595 TPC-C result of 1,601,784 tpmC, $5.05/tpmC, avail.
04/20/05
32-core (16/32/64) Fujitsu PQuest TPC-C result of 1,354,086 tpmC,
$3.25/tpmC, avail. 11/22/08
16-core (8/16/32) IBM Power 570 TPC-C result of 1,616,162 tpmC,
$3.54/tpmC, avail. 11/21/07
16-core (4/16/16) HP DL585 TPC-C result of 579,814 tpmC, $.96/tpmC, avail.
11/17/08
4-core (2/4/8) IBM Power 570 TPC-C result of 404,462 tpmC, $3.50/tpmC,
avail. 11/26/07
4-core (2/4/8) HP rx6600 TPC-C result of 230,569 tpmC, $2.63/tpmC, avail.
12/01/06

Sources:
http://www.spec.org
http://www.tpc.org
http://www.sap.com/benchmark/
http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/PDSreports.html
All results are as of 05/01/09
TPC-C results with processor chip/core/thread.
SPEComp results: IBM cores = 2x chip, threads = 4x chip.
SAP certification numbers can be found in SAP section of charts.
Linpack results are SMP only.

2009 IBM Corporation

IBM Power Systems


# Cores

GHz

IBM
System

POWER Result

Second Place
Result

POWER
Faster By

Lotus NotesBench R6Mail

16

1.65

i5-595

175,000

120,000

45.8%

8 2-way HP ProLiant BL20p

Lotus NotesBench D7 R6iNotes

16

1.8

p5-560Q

55,000

43,000

27.9%

Sun T5120

SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 2-core

3.8

JS12

12,885

7,612

69.2%

Sun Fire X4200

SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 4-core

4.2

520

20,443

13,817

47.9%

Sun V40z

SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 8-core

4.2

550

40,773

23,224

75.5%

Sun Fire X8420

SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 16-core

16

4.7

570

94,350

25,932

263%

HP AlphaServer GS1280

SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) Overall

64

595

242,116

104,714

88.8%

Sun/Fujitsu M8000

SPEC OMPL2001 base (64-core)

64

2.30

p5-595

1,005,583

532,576

98.1%

Sun/Fujitsu M8000

LINPACK HPC 2-core

1.90

p5-520

14.31

12.05

18.8%

HP rx1620 (1.6 GHz)

LINPACK HPC 4-core

4.7

520

65

21.71

199.4%

HP rx5670

LINPACK HPC 8-core

550

137.6

48.55

183.4%

HP rx6600

LINPACK HPC 16-core

16

570

277.7

88.8

212.7%

HP rx8620

LINPACK HPC 32-core

32

4.7

575

500

268.6

86.1%

Fujitsu/Sun M9000

LINPACK HPC 64-core

64

595

1050

342

207%

HP Superdome

Benchmarks

Second Place System (non-IBM)

POWER vs.
Best
Competitive
Result
Comparing the best
available results vs.
POWER

Sources:
http://www.spec.org
http://www.tpc.org
http://www.sap.com/benchmark/
http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/PDSreports.html
All results are as of 05/01/09
TPC-C results with processor chip/core/thread.
SPEComp results: IBM cores = 2x chip, threads = 4x chip.
SAP certification numbers can be found in SAP section of charts.
Linpack results are SMP only.

46

2009 IBM Corporation

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen