asked on
CPU performance of IBM x3850 and x3650 vs x445
How many times is the CPU of x3850 and x3650
faster than an IBM x445 ?
Will be good if you can provide some kind of charts of comparison
as I'm going to tech refresh (by virtualizing) some x445 & replace
them with either x3850 or x3650
The x445 houses some applications like Biztalk & MS SQL 2000
currently
faster than an IBM x445 ?
Will be good if you can provide some kind of charts of comparison
as I'm going to tech refresh (by virtualizing) some x445 & replace
them with either x3850 or x3650
The x445 houses some applications like Biztalk & MS SQL 2000
currently
Server HardwareComponentsMicrosoft SQL Server 2008
Last Comment
sunhux
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
So I believe you need to (at least) specify precisely how many processors AND cores you have/want in the two configurations to compare for anyone to help.
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER
I plan to run 6 VMs (Virtual Machines in VMware 5 or is it ESX 5)
in each x3850 with each VM running Win 2003 (we'll upgrade to
Win2008 next year) as immediate task is to shut down the x445.
Currently I have 6 physical x445, so can I just decomm all the
6 physical x445 (each of them with 4GB RAM) & house all the
6 as VMs in one x3850 (with 96GB RAM) ? Can the x3850 take
it & still deliver better performance than the 6 separate
physical x445 ?
Btw, is x445 end-of-support?
As lcohan provided in the response above, x3850 has 10 cores
(I think our presales told me it's 4x 6Cores ie 4 CPU with each
CPU having 6 Cores?) while x445 has two processors, can I
roughly make an estimate that an x3850 can hold 5 times the
number of VMs as an x345 (assuming same load/type of VMs)
One more question:
I noticed one presales person recommending x3650 as ESX hosts
to house VMs while x3850 as standalone DB servers. I know for
Oracle SPARC T-series & SPARC M-series, they're differentiated
in the sense that T-series are more suitable for multi-threading
(suitable as Web & App servers & virtualization) while M-series
are meant for to handle lesser threads but process serialized
heavy transactions (ie meant more for DB servers). So is
x3650 and x3850 differentiated in the same manner ?
in each x3850 with each VM running Win 2003 (we'll upgrade to
Win2008 next year) as immediate task is to shut down the x445.
Currently I have 6 physical x445, so can I just decomm all the
6 physical x445 (each of them with 4GB RAM) & house all the
6 as VMs in one x3850 (with 96GB RAM) ? Can the x3850 take
it & still deliver better performance than the 6 separate
physical x445 ?
Btw, is x445 end-of-support?
As lcohan provided in the response above, x3850 has 10 cores
(I think our presales told me it's 4x 6Cores ie 4 CPU with each
CPU having 6 Cores?) while x445 has two processors, can I
roughly make an estimate that an x3850 can hold 5 times the
number of VMs as an x345 (assuming same load/type of VMs)
One more question:
I noticed one presales person recommending x3650 as ESX hosts
to house VMs while x3850 as standalone DB servers. I know for
Oracle SPARC T-series & SPARC M-series, they're differentiated
in the sense that T-series are more suitable for multi-threading
(suitable as Web & App servers & virtualization) while M-series
are meant for to handle lesser threads but process serialized
heavy transactions (ie meant more for DB servers). So is
x3650 and x3850 differentiated in the same manner ?
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER
Hi
http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/results/res2011q3/virt_sc2010-20110712-00031-perf.html
The link/url above gave x3850's performance "Overall score of 3824" (refer
to "Overall score" in the right-most column at the above url) & on the
top right corner, it indicated
"SPECvirt_sc2010 3824 @ 234 VMs"
Does it mean the scoring was done by running 234 VMs concurrently
in that x3850 box?
http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/results/res2011q1/virt_sc2010-20110208-00023-perf.html
Then another link/url just above gave x3850's performance "Overall score of 2742"
only & on the top right corner, it indicated
"SPECvirt_sc2010 2742 @ 168 VMs"
Why are the 2 links giving different Overall Score & is the higher the score,
the better is the performance of that box?
Does it sound feasible for an x3850 to host 168 VMs in it with VMWare ESXi 4.1
(in both links above, it's indicated ESXi 4.1 is used) ?
http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/results/res2011q3/virt_sc2010-20110712-00031-perf.html
The link/url above gave x3850's performance "Overall score of 3824" (refer
to "Overall score" in the right-most column at the above url) & on the
top right corner, it indicated
"SPECvirt_sc2010 3824 @ 234 VMs"
Does it mean the scoring was done by running 234 VMs concurrently
in that x3850 box?
http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/results/res2011q1/virt_sc2010-20110208-00023-perf.html
Then another link/url just above gave x3850's performance "Overall score of 2742"
only & on the top right corner, it indicated
"SPECvirt_sc2010 2742 @ 168 VMs"
Why are the 2 links giving different Overall Score & is the higher the score,
the better is the performance of that box?
Does it sound feasible for an x3850 to host 168 VMs in it with VMWare ESXi 4.1
(in both links above, it's indicated ESXi 4.1 is used) ?