Performance report primergy rx300 s7 - fujitsu global

WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

WHITE PAPER 

FUJITSU PRIMERGY SERVERS 

PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

This document contains a summary of the benchmarks executed for the PRIMERGY 

RX300 S7. 

The PRIMERGY RX300 S7 performance data are compared with the data of other 

PRIMERGY models and discussed. In addition to the benchmark results, an explanation 

has been included for each benchmark and for the benchmark environment. 

Version 

1.3 

2012-10-09 

© Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012 Page 1 (59)

WHITE PAPER PERFORMANCE REPORT PRIMERGY RX300 S7 VERSION: 1.3 2012-10-09 

Contents 

Document history ................................................................................................................................................ 3 

Technical data .................................................................................................................................................... 4 

SPECcpu2006 .................................................................................................................................................... 7 

SPECjbb2005 ................................................................................................................................................... 14 

SPECpower_ssj2008 ........................................................................................................................................ 16 

Disk-I/O ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 

SAP SD ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 

OLTP-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 

TPC-E with TPC-Energy ................................................................................................................................... 36 

vServCon .......................................................................................................................................................... 42 

VMmark V2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 49 

STREAM ........................................................................................................................................................... 53 

LINPACK .......................................................................................................................................................... 55 

Literature ........................................................................................................................................................... 58 

Contact ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 

Page 2 (59) © Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012


Document history 

Version 1.0 

New: 

Technical data 

SPECcpu2006 

Measurements with processors of Xeon series E5-2600 

SPECjbb2005 

Measurement with Xeon E5-2690 

SPECpower_ssj2008 

Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM 

SAP SD 

Certification number 2012008 

OLTP-2 

Results for Xeon E5-2600 processor series 

vServCon 

Results for Xeon E5-2600 processor series 

STREAM 

Measurements with Xeon E5-2600 processor series 

LINPACK 

Measurements with Xeon E5-2600 processor series 

Version 1.1 

New: 

VMmark V2 


Version 1.2 

New: 

TPC-E with TPC-Energy 


Version 1.3 

New: 

Disk I/O 

Measurements with ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SATA)‖, ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 

(Onboard SAS)‖, ―RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 0/1‖,―RAID Ctrl SAS 5/6 512MB (D2616)‖ and ―RAID Ctrl SAS 

6G 5/6 1GB (D3116)‖ controllers 

Updated: 


Measurement with IBM J9 VM 



Technical data 

Decimal prefixes according to the SI standard are used for measurement units in this white paper (e.g. 1 GB 

= 10 9 bytes). In contrast, these prefixes should be interpreted as binary prefixes (e.g. 1 GB = 2 30 bytes) for 

the capacities of caches and storage modules. Separate reference will be made to any further exceptions 

where applicable. 

Model PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

Model versions 

Form factor Rack server 

Chipset Intel C600 series 

Number of sockets 2 

Number of processors orderable 1 or 2 

Basic unit with 6 3.5" HDD bays fixed 

Basic unit with 2.5" HDD bays expandable 



Processor type Intel Xeon series E5-2600 

Number of memory slots 24 (12 per processor) 

Maximum memory configuration 768 GB 

Onboard LAN controller 2 × 1 Gbit/s 

Onboard HDD controller 

PCI slots 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

Basic unit with 

6 3.5" HDDs fixed 

Max. number of internal hard disks 

Controller with RAID 0, RAID 1 or RAID 10 for up to 4 × 2.5" SATA HDDs 

Optional for basic unit with 2.5" HDD bays expandable: 

SAS Enabling Key for Onboard Ports for up to 4 × 2.5" SAS HDDs 

5 PCI-Express 3.0 x8 

2 PCI-Express 3.0 x16 

Basic unit with 3.5" HDD bays: 6 

Basic unit with 2.5" HDD bays expandable: 16 


Basic unit with 

2.5" HDD bays expandable 



Processors (since system release) 

Processor 

Cores 

Threads 

Cache 

[MB] 

QPI 

Speed 

[GT/s] 

Processor 

Frequency 

[Ghz] 

Max. 

Turbo 

Frequency 

at full load 

[Ghz] 

Max. 

Turbo 

Frequency 

© Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012 Page 5 (59) 

[Ghz] 

Max. 

Memory 

Frequency 

[MHz] 

Xeon E5-2637 2 4 5 8.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 1600 80 

Xeon E5-2603 4 4 10 6.40 1.80 n/a n/a 1066 80 

Xeon E5-2609 4 4 10 6.40 2.40 n/a n/a 1066 80 

Xeon E5-2643 4 8 10 8.00 3.30 3.40 3.50 1600 130 

Xeon E5-2630L 6 12 15 7.20 2.00 2.30 2.50 1333 60 

Xeon E5-2620 6 12 15 7.20 2.00 2.30 2.50 1333 95 

Xeon E5-2630 6 12 15 7.20 2.30 2.60 2.80 1333 95 

Xeon E5-2640 6 12 15 7.20 2.50 2.80 3.00 1333 95 

Xeon E5-2667 6 12 15 8.00 2.90 3.20 3.50 1600 130 

Xeon E5-2650L 8 16 20 8.00 1.80 2.00 2.30 1600 70 

Xeon E5-2650 8 16 20 8.00 2.00 2.40 2.80 1600 95 

Xeon E5-2660 8 16 20 8.00 2.20 2.70 3.00 1600 95 

Xeon E5-2665 8 16 20 8.00 2.40 2.80 3.10 1600 115 

Xeon E5-2670 8 16 20 8.00 2.60 3.00 3.30 1600 115 

Xeon E5-2680 8 16 20 8.00 2.70 3.10 3.50 1600 130 

Xeon E5-2690 8 16 20 8.00 2.90 3.30 3.80 1600 135 

Memory modules (since system release) 

Memory module 

2GB (1x2GB) 1Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC 

(2 GB 1Rx8 PC3L-12800E) 

4GB (1x4GB) 2Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC 

(4 GB 2Rx8 PC3L-12800E) 

4GB (1x4GB) 1Rx4 L DDR3-1333 R ECC 

(4 GB 1Rx4 PC3L-10600R) 


(4 GB 1Rx4 PC3L-12800R) 


(4 GB 2Rx8 PC3L-12800R) 


(8 GB 2Rx4 PC3L-10600R) 


(8 GB 2Rx4 PC3L-12800R) 

16GB (1x16GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC 

(16 GB 4Rx4 PC3L-10600L) 


(16 GB 2Rx4 PC3L-12800R) 

32GB (1x32GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC 

(32 GB 4Rx4 PC3L-10600L) 

Capacity [GB] 

Ranks 

Bit width of the 

memory chips 

Frequency [MHz] 

2 1 8 1600 

4 2 8 1600 

4 1 4 1333 

4 1 4 1600 

4 2 8 1600 

8 2 4 1333 

8 2 4 1600 

16 4 4 1333 

16 2 4 1600 

32 4 4 1333 

Low voltage 

Load reduced 

Registered 

ECC 

TDP 

[Watt]


Power supplies (since system release) Max. number 

Power supply 450W (hot-plug) 2 

Power supply 800W (hot-plug) 2 

Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions. 

Detailed technical information is available in the data sheet PRIMERGY RX300 S7. 



SPECcpu2006 

Benchmark description 

SPECcpu2006 is a benchmark which measures the system efficiency with integer and floating-point 

operations. It consists of an integer test suite (SPECint2006) containing 12 applications and a floating-point 

test suite (SPECfp2006) containing 17 applications. Both test suites are extremely computing-intensive and 

concentrate on the CPU and the memory. Other components, such as Disk I/O and network, are not 

measured by this benchmark. 

SPECcpu2006 is not tied to a special operating system. The benchmark is available as source code and is 

compiled before the actual measurement. The used compiler version and their optimization settings also 

affect the measurement result. 

SPECcpu2006 contains two different performance measurement methods: the first method (SPECint2006 or 

SPECfp2006) determines the time which is required to process single task. The second method 

(SPECint_rate2006 or SPECfp_rate2006) determines the throughput, i.e. the number of tasks that can be 

handled in parallel. Both methods are also divided into two measurement runs, ―base‖ and ―peak‖ which 

differ in the use of compiler optimization. When publishing the results the base values are always used; the 

peak values are optional. 

Benchmark Arithmetics Type Compiler 

optimization 

SPECint2006 integer peak aggressive 

SPECint_base2006 integer base conservative 

SPECint_rate2006 integer peak aggressive 

SPECint_rate_base2006 integer base conservative 

SPECfp2006 floating point peak aggressive 

SPECfp_base2006 floating point base conservative 

SPECfp_rate2006 floating point peak aggressive 

SPECfp_rate_base2006 floating point base conservative 

Measurement 

result 

Application 

Speed single-threaded 

Throughput multi-threaded 

Speed single-threaded 

Throughput multi-threaded 

The measurement results are the geometric average from normalized ratio values which have been 

determined for individual benchmarks. The geometric average - in contrast to the arithmetic average - means 

that there is a weighting in favour of the lower individual results. Normalized means that the measurement is 

how fast is the test system compared to a reference system. Value ―1‖ was defined for the 

SPECint_base2006-, SPECint_rate_base2006, SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp_rate_base2006 results of 

the reference system. For example, a SPECint_base2006 value of 2 means that the measuring system has 

handled this benchmark twice as fast as the reference system. A SPECfp_rate_base2006 value of 4 means 

that the measuring system has handled this benchmark some 4/[# base copies] times faster than the 

reference system. ―# base copies‖ specify how many parallel instances of the benchmark have been 

executed. 

Not every SPECcpu2006 measurement is submitted by us for publication at SPEC. This is why the SPEC 

web pages do not have every result. As we archive the log files for all measurements, we can prove the 

correct implementation of the measurements at any time. 



Benchmark environment 

System Under Test (SUT) 

Hardware 


Processor Xeon E5-2600 processor series 

Memory 

1 processor: 8 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 

2 processors: 16 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 

Power Supply Unit 2 × Power supply 450W (hot-plug) 

Software 

BIOS settings SPECint_base2006, SPECint2006, SPECfp_base2006, SPECfp2006: 

Processors other than Xeon E5-2603, E5-2609: Hyper-Threading = Disabled 

Operating system Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 

Operating system 

settings 

echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/redhat_transparent_hugepage/enabled 

Compiler Intel C++/Fortran Compiler 12.1 




Benchmark results 

In terms of processors the benchmark result depends primarily on the size of the processor cache, the 

support for Hyper-Threading, the number of processor cores and on the processor frequency. In the case of 

processors with Turbo mode the number of cores, which are loaded by the benchmark, determines the 

maximum processor frequency that can be achieved. In the case of single-threaded benchmarks, which 

largely load one core only, the maximum processor frequency that can be achieved is higher than with multithreaded 

benchmarks (see the processor table in the section "Technical Data"). 

Processor 

Number of processors 

SPECint_base2006 

SPECint2006 


Xeon E5-2637 2 45.1 47.5 1 96.7 101 2 187 196 

Xeon E5-2603 2 26.6 27.8 1 86.1 89.6 2 168 175 

Xeon E5-2609 2 34.6 36.3 1 111 116 2 217 226 

Xeon E5-2643 2 49.3 52.0 1 185 194 2 361 378 

Xeon E5-2630L 2 36.8 39.1 1 193 201 2 377 394 

Xeon E5-2620 2 37.0 39.3 1 193 202 2 376 393 

Xeon E5-2630 2 41.2 43.8 1 213 223 2 417 436 

Xeon E5-2640 2 43.8 46.6 1 227 237 2 444 463 

Xeon E5-2667 2 50.8 54.2 1 258 269 2 504 526 

Xeon E5-2650L 2 35.2 37.7 1 225 236 2 441 461 

Xeon E5-2650 2 42.1 45.4 1 265 276 2 517 540 

Xeon E5-2660 2 45.2 48.3 1 291 302 2 568 593 

Xeon E5-2665 2 47.0 50.3 1 300 313 2 587 613 

Xeon E5-2670 2 49.4 52.7 1 317 330 2 618 644 

Xeon E5-2680 2 52.2 56.0 1 326 339 2 638 664 

Xeon E5-2690 2 56.3 60.5 1 339 354 2 669 697 


SPECint_rate_base2006 

SPECint_rate2006 



SPECint_rate2006


Processor 


SPECfp_base2006 

SPECfp2006 


Xeon E5-2637 2 65.9 67.9 1 89.5 92.4 2 175 181 

Xeon E5-2603 2 45.2 47.2 1 91.1 93.9 2 179 184 

Xeon E5-2609 2 56.7 59.1 1 111 114 2 219 225 

Xeon E5-2643 2 78.4 82.0 1 165 170 2 327 336 

Xeon E5-2630L 2 61.6 64.9 1 166 170 2 328 336 

Xeon E5-2620 2 61.6 64.9 1 166 170 2 329 337 

Xeon E5-2630 2 67.8 71.0 1 178 183 2 352 361 

Xeon E5-2640 2 70.9 74.6 1 185 190 2 367 376 

Xeon E5-2667 2 81.0 85.4 1 211 217 2 418 429 

Xeon E5-2650L 2 59.8 63.1 1 191 196 2 377 386 

Xeon E5-2650 2 66.9 71.0 1 212 218 2 421 432 

Xeon E5-2660 2 73.4 77.6 1 225 231 2 446 459 

Xeon E5-2665 2 75.3 79.7 1 230 237 2 456 469 

Xeon E5-2670 2 76.8 81.1 1 237 245 2 469 484 

Xeon E5-2680 2 81.7 86.5 1 242 249 2 479 493 

Xeon E5-2690 2 86.8 91.5 1 248 256 2 495 509 

Page 10 (59) © Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012 

SPECfp_rate_base2006 

On 6 th March 2012 the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 with two Xeon E5-2690 processors was ranked 

first in the 2-socket systems category for the benchmark SPECint_base2006. 


first in the Intel-based 2-socket systems category for the benchmark SPECfp_rate_base2006. 


first in the 2-socket systems category for the benchmark SPECint_rate_base2006. 


first in the 2-socket systems category for the benchmark SPECint_rate2006. 


first in the Intel-based 2-socket systems category for the benchmark SPECfp_rate2006. 

The current results can be found at http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results. 

SPECfp_rate2006 



SPECfp_rate2006


The following four diagrams illustrate the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in comparison to its 

predecessor PRIMERGY RX300 S6, in their respective most performant configuration. 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 

SPECcpu2006: integer performance 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 vs. PRIMERGY RX300 S6 

45.3 

47.9 

56.3 

60.5 

PRIMERGY RX300 S6 PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

2 x Xeon X5687 2 x Xeon E5-2690 



389 

416 

669 

697 


2 x Xeon X5690 2 x Xeon E5-2690 

SPECint2006 

SPECint_base2006 





600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

100 

0 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance 


62.0 

65.7 

86.8 

91.5 


2 x Xeon X5687 2 x Xeon E5-2690 



266 

273 

495 

509 


2 x Xeon X5690 2 x Xeon E5-2690 

SPECfp2006 

SPECfp_base2006 





The two diagrams below reflect how the performance of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 scales from one to two 

processors when using the Xeon E5-2690. 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 


PRIMERGY RX300 S7 (2 sockets vs. 1 socket) 

339 

354 

669 

697 

1 x Xeon E5-2690 2 x Xeon E5-2690 


PRIMERGY RX300 S7 (2 sockets vs. 1 socket) 

248 

256 

495 

509 

1 x Xeon E5-2690 2 x Xeon E5-2690 







SPECjbb2005 


SPECjbb2005 is a Java business benchmark that focuses on the performance of Java Server platforms. 

SPECjbb2005 is essentially a modernized SPECjbb2000. The main differences are: 

The transactions have become more complex in order to cover a greater functional scope. 

The working set of the benchmark has been enlarged to the extent that the total system load has 

increased. 

SPECjbb2000 allows only one active Java Virtual Machine instance (JVM) whereas SPECjbb2005 

permits several instances, which in turn achieves greater closeness to reality, particularly with large 

systems. 

On the software side SPECjbb2005 primarily measures the performance of the JVM used with its just-in-time 

compiler as well as their thread and garbage collection implementation. Some aspects of the operating 

system used also play a role. As far as hardware is concerned, it measures the efficiency of the CPUs and 

caches, the memory subsystem and the scalability of shared memory systems (SMP). Disk and network I/O 

are irrelevant. 

SPECjbb2005 emulates a 3-tier client/server system that is typical for modern business process applications 

with the emphasis on the middle-tier system: 

Clients generate the load, consisting of driver threads, which on the basis of TPC-C benchmark 

generate OLTP accesses to a database without thinking times. 

The middle tier system implements the business processes and the updating of the database. 

The database takes on the data management and is emulated by Java objects that are in the 

memory. Transaction logging is implemented on an XML basis. 

The major advantage of this benchmark is that it includes all three tiers that run together on a single host. 

The performance of the middle-tier is measured. Large-scale hardware installations are thus avoided and 

direct comparisons between the SPECjbb2005 results from the various systems are possible. Client and 

database emulation are also written in Java. 

SPECjbb2005 only needs the operating system as well as a Java Virtual Machine with J2SE 5.0 features. 

The scaling unit is a warehouse with approx. 25 MB Java objects. Precisely one Java thread per warehouse 

executes the operations on these objects. The business operations are assumed by TPC-C: 

New Order Entry 

Payment 

Order Status Inquiry 

Delivery 

Stock Level Supervision 

Customer Report 

However, these are the only features SPECjbb2005 and TPC-C have in common. The results of the two 

benchmarks are not comparable. 

SPECjbb2005 has 2 performance metrics: 

bops (business operations per second) is the overall rate of all business operations performed per 

second. 

bops/JVM is the ratio of the first metrics and the number of active JVM instances. 

In comparisons of various SPECjbb2005 results, both metrics must be specified. 

The following rules, according to which a compliant benchmark run has to be performed, are the basis for 

these three metrics: 

A compliant benchmark run consists of a sequence of measuring points with an increasing number of 

warehouses (and thus of threads) with the number in each case being increased by one warehouse. The run 

is started at one warehouse up through 2*MaxWh, but not less than 8 warehouses. MaxWh is the number of 

warehouses with the highest rate per second the benchmark expects. Per default the benchmark equates 

MaxWh with the number of CPUs visible by the operating system. 

The metric bops is the arithmetic average of all measured operation rates with MaxWh warehouses up to 

2*MaxWh warehouses. 





Hardware 



Processor 2 × Xeon E5-2690 

Memory 16 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 

Software 

BIOS settings Hardware Prefetch = Disable 

Adjacent Sector Prefetch = Disable 

DCU Streamer Prefetch = Disable 

SAS/SATA OpROM = LSI MegaRAID 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SP1 


settings 

Using the local security settings console, ―lock pages in memory‖ was enabled for the user 

running the benchmark.‖ 

JVM Oracle Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM on Windows, version 1.6.0_31 

JVM settings start /HIGH /AFFINITY [0xFFFF,0xFFFF0000] /B java -server -Xmx29g -Xms29g -Xmn24g - 

XX:BiasedLockingStartupDelay=200 -XX:ParallelGCThreads=16 -XX:SurvivorRatio=60 - 

XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=90 -XX:InlineSmallCode=3900 -XX:MaxInlineSize=270 - 

XX:FreqInlineSize=2500 -XX:AllocatePrefetchDistance=256 -XX:AllocatePrefetchLines=4 - 

XX:InitialTenuringThreshold=12 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=15 -XX:LoopUnrollLimit=45 - 

XX:+UseCompressedStrings -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UseLargePages - 

XX:+UseParallelOldGC -XX:-UseAdaptiveSizePolicy 



SPECjbb2005 bops = 1536588 

SPECjbb2005 bops/JVM = 768294 

The following diagrams illustrate the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in comparison to its 

predecessor PRIMERGY RX300 S6, in their respective most performant configuration. 

SPECjbb2005 bops: 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 vs. RX300 S6 

SPECjbb2005 bops: 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 vs. RX300 S6 





SPECpower_ssj2008 is the first industry-standard SPEC benchmark that evaluates the power and 

performance characteristics of a server. With SPECpower_ssj2008 SPEC has defined standards for server 

power measurements in the same way they have done for performance. 

The benchmark workload represents typical server-side Java business applications. The workload is 

scalable, multi-threaded, portable across a wide range of platforms and easy to run. The benchmark tests 

CPUs, caches, the memory hierarchy and scalability of symmetric multiprocessor systems (SMPs), as well 

as the implementation of Java Virtual Machine (JVM), Just In Time (JIT) compilers, garbage collection, 

threads and some aspects of the operating system. 

SPECpower_ssj2008 reports power consumption for 

servers at different performance levels — from 100% to 

―active idle‖ in 10% segments — over a set period of 

time. The graduated workload recognizes the fact that 

processing loads and power consumption on servers 

vary substantially over the course of days or weeks. To 

compute a power-performance metric across all levels, 

measured transaction throughputs for each segment are 

added together and then divided by the sum of the 

average power consumed for each segment. The result 

is a figure of merit called ―overall ssj_ops/watt‖. This 

ratio provides information about the energy efficiency of 

the measured server. The defined measurement 

standard enables customers to compare it with other 

configurations and servers measured with 

SPECpower_ssj2008. The diagram shows a typical 

graph of a SPECpower_ssj2008 result. 

The benchmark runs on a wide variety of 

operating systems and hardware 

architectures and does not require extensive 

client or storage infrastructure. The minimum 

equipment for SPEC-compliant testing is two 

networked computers, plus a power analyzer 

and a temperature sensor. One computer is 

the System Under Test (SUT) which runs 

one of the supported operating systems and 

the JVM. The JVM provides the environment 

required to run the SPECpower_ssj2008 

workload which is implemented in Java. The 

other computer is a ―Control & Collection 

System‖ (CCS) which controls the operation 

of the benchmark and captures the power, 

performance and temperature readings for 

reporting. The diagram provides an overview 

of the basic structure of the benchmark 

configuration and the various components. 





Hardware 


Model version Basic unit with 2.5" HDD bays expandable 


Memory Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: 8 × 4GB (1x4GB) 2Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC 

Measurement with IBM J9 VM: 6 × 4GB (1x4GB) 2Rx8 L DDR3-1600 U ECC 

Network-Interface Onboard LAN-Controller (1 port used) 

Disk-Subsystem Onboard HDD-Controller 

Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: 

1 × SSD SATA 3G 32GB SLC HOT PLUG 2.5" EP 

Measurement with IBM J9 VM: 

1 × HD SATA 6G 250GB 7.2K HOT PL 2.5" BC 


Software 

BIOS Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: R1.1.0 

Measurement with IBM J9 VM: R1.13.0 

BIOS settings Adjacent Sector Prefetch = Disabled 

Hardware Prefetch = Disabled 

DCU Streamer Prefetch = Disabled 

DDR Performance = Low-Voltage optimized 

USB Port Control = Enable internal ports only 

QPI Link Speed = 6.4GT/s 

P-State coordination = SW_ANY 

Intel Virtualization Technology = Disabled 

SAS/SATA OpROM = LSI MegaRAID 

ASPM Support = Auto 

LAN Controller = LAN 1 

Firmware Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: 6.45 

Measurement with IBM J9 VM: 6.53A 



settings 

Using the local security settings console, ―lock pages in memory‖ was enabled for the user 

running the benchmark. 

Power Management: Enabled (―Fujitsu Enhanced Power Settings‖ power plan) 

Set ―Turn off hard disk after = 1 Minute‖ in OS. 

Benchmark was started via Windows Remote Desktop Connection. 

JVM Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: 

Oracle Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM on Windows, version 1.6.0_30 


IBM J9 VM (build 2.6, JRE 1.7.0 Windows Server 2008 R2 amd64-64 20120322_106209 

(JIT enabled, AOT enabled) 

JVM settings start /NODE [0,1] /AFFINITY [0x3,0xC,0x30,0xC0,0x300,0xC00,0x3000,0xC000] 

Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: 

-server -Xmx1024m -Xms1024m -Xmn853m -XX:ParallelGCThreads=2 

-XX:SurvivorRatio=60 -XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=90 -XX:InlineSmallCode=3900 

-XX:MaxInlineSize=270 -XX:FreqInlineSize=2500 -XX:AllocatePrefetchDistance=256 

-XX:AllocatePrefetchLines=4 -XX:InitialTenuringThreshold=12 

-XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=15 -XX:LoopUnrollLimit=45 -XX:+UseCompressedStrings 

-XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UseLargePages -XX:+UseParallelOldGC 


-Xaggressive -Xcompressedrefs -Xgcpolicy:gencon -Xmn800m -Xms1024m 

-Xmx1024m -XlockReservation -Xnoloa -XtlhPrefetch -Xlp -Xconcurrentlevel0 



Other software Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM: none 


IBM SDK Java Technology Edition Version 7.0 for Windows x64 

ServerView Agent for Windows 

ServerView RAID Manager 



Measurement with Oracle Java HotSpot VM 

The PRIMERGY RX300 S7 achieved the following result: 

SPECpower_ssj2008 = 5,032 overall ssj_ops/watt 

The adjoining diagram shows the result 

of the configuration described above. 

The red horizontal bars show the 

performance to power ratio in 

ssj_ops/watt (upper x-axis) for each 

target load level tagged on the y-axis of 

the diagram. The blue line shows the 

run of the curve for the average power 

consumption (bottom x-axis) at each 

target load level marked with a small 

rhomb. The black vertical line shows 

the benchmark result of 5,032 overall 

ssj_ops/watt for the PRIMERGY RX300 

S7. This is the quotient of the sum of 

the transaction throughputs for each 

load level and the sum of the average 

power consumed for each measurement 

interval. 



The following table shows the benchmark results for the throughput in ssj_ops, the power consumption in 

watts and the resulting energy efficiency for each load level. 

Performance Power Energy Efficiency 

Target Load ssj_ops Average Power (W) ssj_ops/watt 

100% 1,343,300 245 5,483 

90% 1,209,714 217 5,563 

80% 1,078,110 187 5,777 

70% 938,069 156 6,030 

60% 808,997 134 6,024 

50% 673,417 117 5,740 

40% 537,643 105 5,109 

30% 403,053 94.9 4,249 

20% 269,431 85.3 3,160 

10% 133,103 74.9 1,777 

Active Idle 0 53.1 0 

∑ssj_ops / ∑power = 5,032 

The PRIMERGY RX300 S7 achieved a new world record with this result, thus surpassing the 

best result of the competition by 6.4% (date: March 21, 2012). Thus, the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

proves itself to be the most energy-efficient single-node server in the world. For the latest 

SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark results, visit: http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/results. 

SPECpower_ssj2008: PRIMERGY RX300 S7 vs. competition 

The comparison with the competition makes 

the advantage of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in 

the field of energy efficiency evident. With 

6.4% more energy efficiency than the best 

result of the competition in the single-node 

server category, the Dell PowerEdge T620 

server, and 8% more energy efficiency than 

the IBM system x3650, which just like the 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 belongs to the category 

of 2U 2-socket rack servers, the 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 is setting new standards. 



Measurement with IBM J9 VM 

The PRIMERGY RX300 S7 achieved the following result: 

SPECpower_ssj2008 = 5,406 overall ssj_ops/watt 

The adjoining diagram shows the result 

of the configuration described above. 

The red horizontal bars show the 

performance to power ratio in 

ssj_ops/watt (upper x-axis) for each 

target load level tagged on the y-axis 

of the diagram. The blue line shows 

the run of the curve for the average 

power consumption (bottom x-axis) at 

each target load level marked with a 

small rhomb. The black vertical line 

shows the benchmark result of 5,406 

overall ssj_ops/watt for the 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7. This is the 

quotient of the sum of the transaction 

throughputs for each load level and the 

sum of the average power consumed 

for each measurement interval. 

The following table shows the benchmark results for the throughput in ssj_ops, the power consumption in 

watts and the resulting energy efficiency for each load level. 

Performance Power Energy Efficiency 

Target Load ssj_ops Average Power (W) ssj_ops/watt 

100% 1,432,829 245 5,859 

90% 1,291,012 216 5,988 

80% 1,149,959 183 6,289 

70% 1,003,836 153 6,555 

60% 863,137 132 6,516 

50% 720,232 117 6,173 

40% 573,470 106 5,435 

30% 431,904 95.2 4,535 

20% 287,140 85.4 3,361 

10% 143,632 75.3 1,906 

Active Idle 0 54.0 0 

∑ssj_ops / ∑power = 5,406 

The PRIMERGY RX300 S7 achieved a new class record with this result, thus surpassing the 

best result of the competition by 0.6% (date: September 19, 2012). Thus, the PRIMERGY 

RX300 S7 proves itself to be the most energy-efficient 2-socket rack server in the world. The 

current results can be found at http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/results. 



SPECpower_ssj2008: PRIMERGY RX300 S7 vs. competition 

The comparison with the competition makes 

the advantage of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in 

the field of energy efficiency evident. With 

0.6% more energy efficiency than the best 

result of the competition in the 2-socket rack 

server category, the Dell PowerEdge R720 

server, the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 is setting 

new standards. 

The following diagram shows for each load level the power consumption (on the right y-axis) and the 

throughput (on the left y-axis) of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 compared to the predecessor the PRIMERGY 

RX300 S6. 

SPECpower_ssj2008: PRIMERGY RX300 S7 vs. PRIMERGY RX300 S6 



Thanks to the new Sandy Bridge microarchitecture 

and the 7% higher-performing 

IBM J9 VM the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 has in 

comparison with the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 a 

substantially higher throughput and considerably 

lower power consumption. 

Both result in an overall increase in energy 

efficiency in the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 of 

86%. 

SPECpower_ssj2008 overall ssj_ops/watt: 




Disk-I/O 


Performance measurements of disk subsystems for PRIMERGY servers are used to assess their 

performance and enable a comparison of the different storage connections for PRIMERGY servers. As 

standard, these performance measurements are carried out with a defined measurement method, which 

models the hard disk accesses of real application scenarios on the basis of specifications. 

The essential specifications are: 

Share of random accesses / sequential accesses 

Share of read / write access types 

Block size (kB) 

Number of parallel accesses (# of outstanding I/Os) 

A given value combination of these specifications is known as ―load profile‖. The following five standard load 

profiles can be allocated to typical application scenarios: 

Standard load 

profile 

In order to model applications that access in parallel with a different load intensity, the ―# of Outstanding 

I/Os‖ is increased, starting with 1, 3, 8 and going up to 512 (from 8 onwards in increments to the power of 

two). 

The measurements of this document are based on these standard load profiles. 

The main results of a measurement are: 

Access Type of access Block size 

read write 

[kB] 

Throughput [MB/s] Throughput in megabytes per second 

Transactions [IO/s] Transaction rate in I/O operations per second 

Latency [ms] Average response time in ms 

The data throughput has established itself as the normal measurement variable for sequential load profiles, 

whereas the measurement variable ―transaction rate‖ is mostly used for random load profiles with their small 

block sizes. Data throughput and transaction rate are directly proportional to each other and can be 

transferred to each other according to the formula 

Data throughput [MB/s] = Transaction rate [IO/s] × Block size [MB] 

Transaction rate [IO/s] = Data throughput [MB/s] / Block size [MB] 

Application 

File copy random 50% 50% 64 Copying of files 

File server random 67% 33% 64 File server 

Database random 67% 33% 8 

Streaming sequential 100% 0% 64 

Database (data transfer) 

Mail server 

Database (log file), 

Data backup; 

Video streaming (partial) 

Restore sequential 0% 100% 64 Restoring of files 

This section specifies hard disk capacities on a basis of 10 (1 TB = 10 12 bytes) while all other capacities, file 

sizes, block sizes and throughputs are specified on a basis of 2 (1 MB/s = 2 20 bytes/s). 

All the details of the measurement method and the basics of disk I/O performance are described in the white 

paper ―Basics of Disk I/O Performance‖. 




All the measurement results were determined using the hardware and software components listed below. 


Hardware 

Controller 1 × ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SATA)‖ 

1 × ―LSI SW RAID on Intel C600 (Onboard SAS)‖ 

1 × ―RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 0/1‖ 

1 × ―RAID Ctrl SAS 5/6 512MB (D2616)‖ 

1 × ―RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 5/6 1GB (D3116)‖ 

Drive 16 × EP HDD SAS 6 Gbit/s 2.5 15000 rpm 146 GB 

6 × EP HDD SAS 6 Gbit/s 3.5 15000 rpm 300 GB 

16 × EP SSD SAS 6 Gbit/s 2.5 200 GB MLC 

4 × BC HDD SATA 6 Gbit/s 2.5 7200 rpm 1 TB 

Software 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2 

Administration 

software 

Initialization of RAID 

arrays 

File system NTFS 

ServerView RAID Manager 5.0.2 

Measuring tool Iometer 27.07.2006 

RAID arrays are initialized before the measurement with an elementary block size of 64 kB 

(―stripe size‖) 

Measurement data Measurement files of 32 GB with 1 – 8 hard disks; 64 GB with 9 – 16 hard disks; 

128 GB with 17 or more hard disks 

Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions. 




The results presented here are designed to help you choose the right solution from the various configuration 

options of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in the light of disk-I/O performance. The selection of suitable 

components and the right settings of their parameters is important here. These two aspects should therefore 

be dealt with as preparation for the discussion of the performance values. 

Components 

The hard disks are the first essential component. If there is a reference below to ―hard disks‖, this is meant 

as the generic term for HDDs (―hard disk drives‖, in other words conventional hard disks) and SSDs (―solid 

state drives‖, i.e. non-volatile electronic storage media). When selecting the type of hard disk and number of 

hard disks you can move the weighting in the direction of storage capacity, performance, security or price. In 

order to enable a pre-selection of the hard disk types – depending on the required weighting – the hard disk 

types for PRIMERGY servers are divided into three classes: 

―Economic‖ (ECO): low-priced hard disks 

―Business Critical‖ (BC): very failsafe hard disks 

―Enterprise‖ (EP): very failsafe and very high-performance hard disks 

The following table is a list of the hard disk types that have been available for the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

since system release. 

Drive 

class 

Data medium 

type 

Interface 

Form 

factor 


krpm 

Business Critical HDD SATA 6G 2.5" 7.2 

Business Critical HDD SATA 6G 3.5" 7.2 

Enterprise HDD SAS 6G 3.5" 15 

Enterprise HDD SAS 6G 2.5" 10, 15 

Enterprise SSD SATA 6G 2.5" - 

Enterprise SSD SAS 6G 2.5" - 

Mixed drive configurations of SAS and SATA hard disks in one system are permitted, unless they are 

excluded in the configurator for special hard disk types. 

The SATA-HDDs offer high capacities right up into the terabyte range at a very low cost. The SAS-HDDs 

have shorter access times and achieve higher throughputs due to the higher rotational speed of the SAS- 

HDDs (in comparison with the SATA-HDDs). SAS-HDDs with a rotational speed of 15 krpm have better 

access times and throughputs than comparable HDDs with a rotational speed of 10 krpm. The 6G interface 

has in the meantime established itself as the standard among the SAS-HDDs. 

Of all the hard disk types SSDs offer on the one hand by far the highest transaction rates for random load 

profiles, and on the other hand the shortest access times. In return, however, the price per gigabyte of 

storage capacity is substantially higher. 

More hard disks per system are possible as a result of using 2.5" hard disks instead of 3.5" hard disks. 

Consequently, the load that each individual hard disk has to overcome decreases and the maximum overall 

performance of the system increases. 

More detailed performance statements about hard disk types are available in the white paper ―Single Disk 

Performance‖. 

The maximum number of hard disks in the system depends on the system configuration. The following table 

lists the essential cases. 

Form 

factor 

Interface 

Connection 

type 

Number of 

PCIe 

controllers 

Maximum 

number of 

hard disks 

2.5" SATA 3G, SAS 3G direct 0 4 

3.5" SATA 3G/6G, SAS 6G direct 1 6 

2.5" SATA 3G/6G, SAS 6G direct 1 16


After the hard disks the RAID controller is the second performance-determining key component. In the case 

of these controllers the ―modular RAID‖ concept of the PRIMERGY servers offers a plethora of options to 

meet the various requirements of a wide range of different application scenarios. 

The following table summarizes the most important features of the available RAID controllers of the system. 

A short alias is specified here for each controller, which is used in the subsequent list of the performance 

values. 

Controller name Alias Cache Supported 

interfaces 

LSI SW RAID on Intel 

C600 (Onboard SATA) 

LSI SW RAID on Intel 

C600 (Onboard SAS) 

RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 0/1 

(D2607) 

RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 5/6 512 

MB (D2616) 

RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 5/6 1GB 

(D3116) 

Max. # disks 

in the system 

RAID levels BBU/ 

FBU 

Patsburg A - SATA 3G - 4 × 2.5" 0, 1, 10 -/- 

Patsburg B - SATA 3G 

SAS 3G 

LSI2008 - SATA 3G/6G 

SAS 3G/6G 

LSI2108 512 MB SATA 3G/6G 

SAS 3G/6G 

LSI2208-1G 1 GB SATA 3G/6G 

SAS 3G/6G 

- 4 × 2.5" 0, 1, 10 -/- 

PCIe 2.0 

x8 

PCIe 2.0 

x8 

PCIe 2.0 

x8 

8 × 2.5" 

6 × 3.5" 

16 × 2.5" 

6 × 3.5" 

16 × 2.5" 

6 × 3.5" 

0, 1, 1E, 10 -/- 

0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 

50, 60 

0, 1, 1E, 5, 6, 

10, 50, 60 

The onboard RAID controller is implemented in the chipset Intel C600 on the motherboard of the server and 

uses the CPU of the server for the RAID functionality. This controller is a simple solution that does not 

require a PCIe slot. In addition to the invariably available connection option of SATA hard disks, the 

additional SAS functionality can be activated via an ―SAS enabling key‖. 

System-specific interfaces 

The interfaces of a controller to the motherboard and to the hard disks have in each case specific limits for 

data throughput. These limits are listed in the following table. The minimum of these two values is a definite 

limit, which cannot be exceeded. This value is highlighted in bold in the following table. 

Controller 

alias 

Effective in the configuration Connection 

# Disk 

channels 

Limit for 

throughput of 

disk interface 

PCIe 

version 

PCIe 

width 

Limit for 

throughput of 

PCIe interface 

via 

expander 

Patsburg A 4 × SATA 3G 973 MB/s - - - - 

Patsburg B 4 × SAS 3G 973 MB/s - - - - 

LSI2008 8 × SAS 6G 3890 MB/s 2.0 X8 3433 MB/s - 

LSI2108 8 × SAS 6G 3890 MB/s 2.0 X8 3433 MB/s 

LSI2208-1G 8 × SAS 6G 3890 MB/s 2.0 X8 3433 MB/s 

An expander makes it possible to connect more hard disks in a system than the SAS channels that the 

controller has. An expander cannot increase the possible maximum throughput of a controller, but makes it 

available in total to all connected hard disks. 

More details about the RAID controllers of the PRIMERGY systems are available in the white paper ―RAID 

Controller Performance‖. 


/- 

-/


Settings 

In most cases, the cache of the hard disks has a great influence on disk-I/O performance. It is frequently 

regarded as a security problem in case of power failure and is thus switched off. On the other hand, it was 

integrated by hard disk manufacturers for the good reason of increasing the write performance. For 

performance reasons it is therefore advisable to enable the hard disk cache. This is particular valid for SATA- 

HDDs. The performance can as a result increase more than tenfold for specific access patterns and hard 

disk types. More information about the performance impact of the hard disk cache is available in the 

document ―Single Disk Performance‖. To prevent data loss in case of power failure you are recommended to 

equip the system with a UPS. 

In the case of controllers with a cache there are several parameters that can be set. The optimal settings can 

depend on the RAID level, the application scenario and the type of data medium. In the case of RAID levels 

5 and 6 in particular (and the more complex RAID level combinations 50 and 60) it is obligatory to enable the 

controller cache for application scenarios with write share. If the controller cache is enabled, the data 

temporarily stored in the cache should be safeguarded against loss in case of power failure. Suitable 

accessories are available for this purpose (e.g. a BBU or FBU). 

For the purpose of easy and reliable handling of the settings for RAID controllers and hard disks it is 

advisable to use the RAID-Manager software ―ServerView RAID‖ that is supplied for PRIMERGY servers. All 

the cache settings for controllers and hard disks can usually be made en bloc – specifically for the 

application – by using the pre-defined modi ―Performance‖ or ―Data Protection‖. The ―Performance‖ mode 

ensures the best possible performance settings for the majority of the application scenarios. 

More information about the setting options of the controller cache is available in the white paper ―RAID 

Controller Performance‖. 

Performance values 

In general, disk-I/O performance of a RAID array depends on the type and number of hard disks, on the 

RAID level and on the RAID controller. If the limits of the system-specific interfaces are not exceeded, the 

statements on disk-I/O performance are therefore valid for all PRIMERGY systems. This is why all the 

performance statements of the document ―RAID Controller Performance‖ also apply for the PRIMERGY 

RX300 S7 if the configurations measured there are also supported by this system. 

The performance values of the system are listed in table form below, specifically for different RAID levels, 

access types and block sizes. Substantially different configuration versions are dealt with separately. 

The performance values in the following tables use the established measurement variables, as already 

mentioned in the subsection Benchmark description. Thus, transaction rate is specified for random accesses 

and data throughput for sequential accesses. To avoid any confusion among the measurement units the 

tables have been separated for the two access types. 

The table cells contain the maximum achievable values. This has three implications: On the one hand hard 

disks with optimal performance were used (the components used are described in more detail in the 

subsection Benchmark environment). Furthermore, cache settings of controllers and hard disks, which are 

optimal for the respective access scenario and the RAID level, are used as a basis. And ultimately each 

value is the maximum value for the entire load intensity range (# of outstanding I/Os). 

In order to also visualize the numerical values each table cell is highlighted with a horizontal bar, the length 

of which is proportional to the numerical value in the table cell. All bars shown in the same scale of length 

have the same color. In other words, a visual comparison only makes sense for table cells with the same 

colored bars. 

Since the horizontal bars in the table cells depict the maximum achievable performance values, they are 

shown by the color getting lighter as you move from left to right. The light shade of color at the right end of 

the bar tells you that the value is a maximum value and can only be achieved under optimal prerequisites. 

The darker the shade becomes as you move to the left, the more frequently it will be possible to achieve the 

corresponding value in practice. 



Random accesses (performance values in IO/s): 

RAID 

Controller 

Configuration version 

Patsburg A SATA 2.5" 

Patsburg B SAS 2.5" 

LSI2008 SAS 2.5" 

LSI2008 SAS 

Interface 

Form factor 

3.5" 

LSI2108 SAS 2.5" 

LSI2108 SAS 3.5" 

LSI2208-1G SAS 2.5" 

LSI2208-1G SAS 3.5" 

# Disks 

RAID level 

HDDs random, 

8 kB blocks, 

67% read, [IO/s] 

HDDs random, 

64 kB blocks, 


SSDs random, 

8 kB blocks, 


2 RAID 1 550 447 N/A N/A 

4 RAID 0 1073 583 N/A N/A 

4 RAID10 828 446 N/A N/A 

2 RAID 1 804 694 17736 3916 

4 RAID 0 1830 1015 37028 8333 

4 RAID10 1347 744 29082 6779 

2 RAID 1 820 702 17649 4117 

8 RAID 0 3491 1980 40766 12706 

8 RAID10 2716 1516 28692 10539 

2 RAID 1 868 729 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 0 2708 1548 N/A N/A 

6 RAID10 2090 1160 N/A N/A 

2 RAID 1 859 679 19002 4400 

16 RAID 10 7944 4124 25172 15894 

16 RAID 0 10460 5606 77421 25486 

16 RAID 5 6324 3555 19675 12245 

2 RAID 1 1042 730 N/A N/A 

6 RAID10 3110 1600 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 0 4216 2149 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 5 2241 1138 N/A N/A 

2 RAID 1 1109 863 20201 4362 

16 RAID 10 8135 4232 59199 31605 

16 RAID 0 10460 5606 182054 44447 

16 RAID 5 5835 3257 41271 21162 

2 RAID 1 1105 746 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 10 3162 1632 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 0 4384 2246 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 5 2316 1259 N/A N/A 

SSDs random, 

64 kB blocks, 




Sequential accesses (performance values in MB/s): 

RAID 

Controller 

Configuration version 

Patsburg A SATA 2.5" 

Patsburg B SAS 2.5" 

LSI2008 SAS 2.5" 

LSI2008 SAS 3.5" 

LSI2108 SAS 2.5" 

LSI2108 SAS 3.5" 

LSI2208-1G SAS 2.5" 

LSI2208-1G SAS 3.5" 

Interface 

Form factor 

# Disks 

RAID level 

HDDs sequential, 

64 kB blocks, 

100% read, [MB/s] 

HDDs sequential, 

64 kB blocks, 

100% write, [MB/s] 

SSDs sequential, 

64 kB blocks, 

100% read, [MB/s] 

2 RAID 1 112 108 N/A N/A 

4 RAID 0 422 419 N/A N/A 

4 RAID10 226 213 N/A N/A 

2 RAID 1 199 192 504 180 

4 RAID 0 780 770 953 642 

4 RAID10 399 384 662 337 

2 RAID 1 287 190 338 199 

8 RAID 0 1492 1264 2470 1322 

8 RAID10 745 728 1101 634 

2 RAID 1 283 184 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 0 964 986 N/A N/A 

6 RAID10 528 517 N/A N/A 

2 RAID 1 371 192 679 176 

16 RAID10 1886 864 1953 843 

16 RAID 0 2750 2483 2327 2177 

16 RAID 5 1808 1203 1870 1225 

2 RAID 1 342 183 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 10 881 540 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 0 1068 1077 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 5 903 898 N/A N/A 

2 RAID 1 355 194 680 169 

16 RAID10 1678 1549 2654 1583 

16 RAID 0 2575 2898 2564 2828 

16 RAID 5 2573 2166 2584 2144 

2 RAID 1 357 183 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 10 648 548 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 0 1080 1077 N/A N/A 

6 RAID 5 901 897 N/A N/A 

SSDs sequential, 

64 kB blocks, 

100% write, [MB/s] 

The use of one controller at its maximum configuration with powerful hard disks (configured as RAID 0) 

enables the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 to achieve a throughput of up to 2828 MB/s for sequential load profiles 

and a transaction rate of up to 182054 IO/s for typical, random application scenarios. 



SAP SD 


The SAP application software consists of modules used to manage all standard business processes. These 

include modules for ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), such as Assemble-to-Order (ATO), Financial 

Accounting (FI), Human Resources (HR), Materials Management (MM), Production Planning (PP) plus Sales 

and Distribution (SD), as well as modules for SCM (Supply Chain Management), Retail, Banking, Utilities, BI 

(Business Intelligence), CRM (Customer Relation Management) or PLM (Product Lifecycle Management). 

The application software is always based on a database so that a SAP configuration consists of the 

hardware, the software components operating system, zhe database and the SAP software itself. 

SAP AG has developed SAP Standard Application Benchmarks in order to verify the performance, stability 

and scaling of a SAP application system. The benchmarks, of which SD Benchmark is the most commonly 

used and most important, analyze the performance of the entire system and thus measure the quality of the 

integrated individual components. 

The benchmark differentiates between a 2-tier and a 3-tier configuration. The 2-tier configuration has the 

SAP application and database installed on one server. With a 3-tier configuration the individual components 

of the SAP application can be distributed via several servers and an additional server handles the database. 

The entire specification of the benchmark developed by SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany can be found at: 

http://www.sap.com/benchmark. 


The measurement set-up is symbolically illustrated below: 

Benchmark 

driver 

Network 

2-tier environment 

Server Disk subsystem 





Hardware 




Network interface 1Gbit/s LAN 

Disk subsystem PRIMERGY RX300 S7: 

1 × RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 5/6 512MB (D2616) 

3 × HD SATA 6G 250GB 7.2K HOT PLUG 2.5" BC 

1 × FC Ctrl 8Gb/s 2 Chan LPe12002 

1 × FibreCAT CX4-480 Storage Unit 


Software 

BIOS settings DDR Performance = Performance Optimized 


Database Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition 

SAP Business Suite 

Software 

Benchmark driver 

Hardware 

SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 


Processor 2 × Xeon X5460 

Memory 32 GB 

Network interface 1Gbit/s LAN 

Software 

Operating system SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP1 



Certification number 2012008 

Number of SAP SD benchmark users 7570 

Average dialog response time 0.99 seconds 

Throughput 

Fully processed order line items/hour 

Dialog steps/hour 

SAPS 

826,330 

2,479,000 

41,320 

Average database request time (dialog/update) 0.019 sec / 0.014 sec 

CPU utilization of central server 99% 

Operating system, central server Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition 

RDBMS SQL Server 2008 

SAP Business Suite software SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0 

Configuration 

Central Server 

Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S7 

2 processors / 16 cores / 32 threads 

Intel Xeon E5-2690, 2.9GHz, 64KB L1 cache and 256KB L2 

cache per core, 20 MB L3 cache per processor 

128 GB main memory 



OLTP-2 


OLTP stands for Online Transaction Processing. The OLTP-2 benchmark is based on the typical application 

scenario of a database solution. In OLTP-2 database access is simulated and the number of transactions 

achieved per second (tps) determined as the unit of measurement for the system. 

In contrast to benchmarks such as SPECint and TPC-E, which were standardized by independent bodies 

and for which adherence to the respective rules and regulations are monitored, OLTP-2 is an internal 

benchmark of Fujitsu. OLTP-2 is based on the well-known database benchmark TPC-E. OLTP-2 was 

designed in such a way that a wide range of configurations can be measured to present the scaling of a 

system with regard to the CPU and memory configuration. 

Even if the two benchmarks OLTP-2 and TPC-E simulate similar application scenarios using the same load 

profiles, the results cannot be compared or even treated as equal, as the two benchmarks use different 

methods to simulate user load. OLTP-2 values are typically similar to TPC-E values. A direct comparison, or 

even referring to the OLTP-2 result as TPC-E, is not permitted, especially because there is no priceperformance 

calculation. 

Further information can be found in the document Benchmark Overview OLTP-2. 



Driver 

Clients 

Network 

Tier A Tier B 

Application Server 

Network 

Database Server 


All results were determined by way of example on a PRIMERGY RX300 S7. 

Disk 

subsystem 



Database Server (Tier B) 

Hardware 



Memory 1 processor: 8 × 32GB (1x32GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC 

2 processors: 16 × 32GB (1x32GB) 4Rx4 L DDR3-1333 LR ECC 

Network interface 2 × onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 

Disk subsystem RX300 S7: Onboard RAID Ctrl SAS 6G 5/6 1024MB (D3116) 

2 × 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive, RAID1 (OS), 

6 × 147 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive, RAID10 (LOG) 

3 × LSI MegaRAID SAS 9286CV-8e 

6 × JX40: 24 × 64 GB SSD Drive each, RAID5 (data) 

Software 

BIOS Version V4.6.5.1 R1.0.5 


Database Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SP1 

Application Server (Tier A) 

Hardware 

Model 1 × PRIMERGY RX200 S6 


Memory 12 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 


2 × Dual Port LAN 1Gb/s 

Disk subsystem 1 × 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive 

Software 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard 

Client 

Hardware 



Memory 24 GB, 1333 MHz registered ECC DDR3 


Disk subsystem 1 × 73 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive 

Software 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard 

Benchmark OLTP-2 Software EGen version 1.12.0 





Database performance greatly depends on the configuration options with CPU, memory and on the 

connectivity of an adequate disk subsystem for the database. In the following scaling considerations for the 

processors we assume that both the memory and the disk subsystem has been adequately chosen and is 

not a bottleneck. 

A guideline in the database environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more 

important than the speed of the memory accesses. This why a configuration with a total memory of 512 GB 

was considered for the measurements with two processors and a configuration with a total memory of 

256 GB for the measurements with one processor. Both memory configurations have memory access of 

1333 MHz. Further information about memory performance can be found in the White Paper Memory 

Performance of Xeon E5-2600 (Sandy Bridge-EP) Based Systems. 

The following diagram shows the OLTP-2 transaction rates that can be achieved with one and two 

processors of the Intel Xeon E5-2600 series. 

E5-2690 - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2680 - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2670 - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2665 - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2660 - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2650 - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2650L - 8 Core, HT 

E5-2667 - 6 Core, HT 

E5-2640 - 6 Core, HT 

E5-2630 - 6 Core, HT 

E5-2630L - 6 Core, HT 

E5-2620 - 6 Core, HT 

E5-2643 - 4 Core, HT 

E5-2609 - 4 Core 

E5-2603 - 4 Core 

E5-2637 - 2 Core, HT 

HT: Hyper-Threading 

520.27 

528.49 

287.16 

428.08 

232.60 

261.81 

598.36 

538.20 

538.76 

487.33 

OLTP-2 tps 

635.64 

638.47 

745.09 

718.68 

845.64 

795.37 

921.05 

895.92 

971.33 

975.50 

979.75 

935.41 

1144.99 

1153.27 

1082.16 

1315.76 

1295.48 

1484.74 

1400.25 

1611.48 

1569.23 

1695.97 

2CPUs 512GB RAM 

1CPU 256GB RAM 

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 

bold: measured 

cursive: calculated 


tps


It is evident that a wide performance range is covered by the variety of released processors. If you compare 

the OLTP-2 value of the processor with the lowest performance (Xeon E5-2603) with the value of the 

processor with the highest performance (Xeon E5-2690), the result is a 4-fold increase in performance. 

Based on the results achieved the processors can be divided into different performance groups: 

The start is made with Xeon E5-2603 and E5-2609 as processors with four cores, but without Hyper- 

Threading and without turbo mode. Although the Xeon E5-2637 only has two cores, it is nevertheless Hyper- 

Threading-capable and on account of the clock frequency lies, as far as performance is concerned, between 

these two processors. Due to its high clock frequency and the high QPI speed of 8.00 GT/s the throughput 

rates of the 6-core processors with the lowest frequencies (Xeon E5-2620 and E5-2630L) are almost 

achieved with the performance-optimized 4-core processor Xeon E5-2643. However, the processors with 

95 Watt and 60 Watt respectively also have distinctly lower power consumption than the Xeon E5-2643 with 

130 Watt. 

The 6-core processors are all Hyper-Threading-capable, have with 7.20 GT/s a higher QPI speed than the 

group of 4-core processors with 6.40 GT/s and they have a 50% larger L3 cache of 15 MB. At the upper end 

of the performance scale of the 6-core processors is the Xeon E5-2667 (130 Watt) with its especially high 

frequency, which on the other hand achieves an OLTP performance that is slightly above the 8-core 

processor with the lowest performance, Xeon E5-2650L (70 Watt). 

The group of processors with eight cores, a QPI speed of 8.00 GT/s and a 20 MB L3 cache is to be found at 

the upper end of the performance scale. Due to the graduated CPU clock frequencies an OLTP performance 

of between 1145 tps (2 × Xeon E5-2650L) and 1696 tps (2 × Xeon E5-2690) is achieved. 

If you compare the maximum achievable OLTP-2 values of the current system generation with the values 

that were achieved on the predecessor systems, the result is an increase of about 34%. 

tps 

2000 

1800 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

2 × X5690 

192 GB 

Predecessor System 

Maximum OLTP-2 tps 

Comparison of system generations 

+ ~ 34% 

2 × E5-2690 

512 GB 

Current System 

Current System TX300 S7 RX200 S7 RX300 S7 RX350 S7 BX924 S3 

Predecessor System TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 TX300 S6 BX924 S2 





The TPC-E benchmark measures the performance of online transaction processing systems (OLTP) and is 

based on a complex database and a number of different transaction types that are carried out on it. TPC-E is 

not only a hardware-independent but also a software-independent benchmark and can thus be run on every 

test platform, i.e. proprietary or open. In addition to the results of the measurement, all the details of the 

systems measured and the measuring method must also be explained in a measurement report (Full 

Disclosure Report or FDR). Consequently, this ensures that the measurement meets all benchmark 

requirements and is reproducible. TPC-E does not just measure an individual server, but a rather extensive 

system configuration. Keys to performance in this respect are the database server, disk I/O and network 

communication. 

The performance metric is tpsE, where tps means transactions per second. tpsE is the average number of 

Trade-Result-Transactions that are performed within a second. The TPC-E standard defines a result as the 

tpsE rate, the price per performance value (e.g. $/tpsE) and the availability date of the measured 

configuration. 

TPC-Energy is an augmentation to the existing TPC benchmarks (e.g. TPC-C, TPC-E, TPC-H). Energy 

consumption of the systems is measured while the TPC benchmark is performed. For this TPC has defined a 

set of rules on how to measure these values. As the result of this benchmark a metric in the form of "Energy / 

Performance" is calculated from the measured values. The result for TPC-E is the metric Watts/tpsE. 

Further information about TPC-E and TPC-Energy can be found in the overview document Benchmark 

Overview TPC-E. 




In July 2012 Fujitsu submitted a TPC-E benchmark result for the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 with the 8-core 

processor Intel Xeon E5-2690 and 512 GB memory. This publication also revealed TPC-Energy values for 

the PRIMERGY RX300 S7. 

The results show an enormous increase in performance compared with the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 with a 

simultaneous reduction in costs and lower energy consumption. 

TPC-E Throughput 

1,871.81 tpsE 

Operating System 

Microsoft Windows Server 

2008 R2 Enterprise Edition 

SP1 

Initial Database Size 

7,704 GB 

Price/Performance 

$ 175.57 USD 

per tpsE 

SUT 


Availability Date 

August 17, 2012 


Total System Cost 

$ 328,623 

Database Server Configuration 

Database Manager 

Microsoft SQL Server 

2012 Enterprise Edition 

Redundancy Level 1 

RAID-5 data and RAID-10 log 

Processors/Cores/Threads 

2/16/32 

TPC-E 1.12.0 

TPC Pricing 1.7.0 

TPC-Energy 1.4.2 

Report Date 

July 5, 2012 

TPC-Energy Metric 

0.69 Watts/tpsE 

Tier A 


1x Intel Xeon E5-2660 2.20 GHz 

16 GB Memory 

1x 250 GB 7.2k rpm SATA Drive 

2x onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 

1x Dual Port LAN 1 Gb/s 

Tier B 


2x Intel Xeon E5-2690 2.90 GHz 

512 GB Memory 

8x 146 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives 

2x onboard LAN 1 Gb/s 

5x SAS RAID Controller 

Storage 

1x PRIMECENTER Rack 

4x ETERNUS JX40 

60x 200 GB SSD Drives 

2 ×1 TB 7.2k rpm SATA Drives 

Memory 

512 GB 

Storage 

60 x 200 GB SSD 

2 x 1 TB 7.2k rpm HDD 

6 x 146 GB 15k rpm HDD 



PRIMERGY 

RX300 S7 

TPC-E Throughput 

1,871.81 tpsE 

Price/Performance 

$ 175.57 USD 

per tpsE 

Energy Summary 


August 17, 2012 

Numerical Quantities For Reported Energy Configuration: 

REC Idle Power: 843.88 Watts 

Average Power of REC : 1288.82 Watts 

Subsystem Reporting: 

Total System 

Cost 

$ 328,623 

Secondary Metrics Additional Numerical Quantities 

TPC-E 1.12.0 

TPC Pricing 1.7.0 

TPC-Energy 1.4.2 

Report Date 

July 5, 2012 


August 17, 2012 

TPC-Energy Metric 

0.69 Watts/tpsE 

Full Load Full Load Idle Idle 

watts/tpsE Avg Watts % of REC Avg Watts % of REC 

Database Server *) 0.32 592.41 45.97% 239.56 28.39% 

Storage *) 0.31 578.42 44.88% 544.80 64.56% 

Application Server *) 0.05 100.99 7.84% 59.12 7.01% 

Miscellaneous *) 0.01 17.00 1.32% 0.40 0.05% 

Total REC 0.69 1,288.82 100.00% 843.88 100.00% 

*) see pricing for list of components 

Lowest ambient temperature at air inlet: 20.13 Degrees Celsius 

Items in Priced Configuration not in the Reported Energy Configuration 

None 

Items in the Reported Energy Configuration not in the Measured Energy Configuration 

Fujitsu Display B20T-6 LED 

More details about this TPC-E result, in particular the Full Disclosure Report, can be found via the TPC web 

page http://www.tpc.org/tpce/results/tpce_result_detail.asp?id=112070501. 



In July 2012, Fujitsu is represented with ten PRIMERGY results in the TPC-E list. 

System and Processors 

Throughput Price / 

Performance 

Watts/tpsE Availability Date 

TX300 S4 with 2 × Xeon X5460 317.45 tpsE $523.49 per tpsE - August 30, 2008 

RX600 S4 with 4 × Xeon X7350 492.34 tpsE $559.88 per tpsE - January 1, 2009 

RX600 S4 with 4 × Xeon X7460 721.40 tpsE $459.71 per tpsE - January 1, 2009 

RX300 S5 with 2 × Xeon X5570 800.00 tpsE $343.91 per tpsE - April 1, 2009 

RX600 S5 with 4 × Xeon X7560 2046.96 tpsE $193.68 per tpsE - September 1, 2010 

RX900 S1 with 8 × Xeon X7560 3800.00 tpsE $245.82 per tpsE - October 1, 2010 

RX300 S6 with 2 × Xeon X5680 1246.13 tpsE $191.48 per tpsE - November 1, 2010 

RX300 S6 with 2 × Xeon X5690 1268.30 tpsE $183.94 per tpsE 0.93 March 1, 2011 

RX900 S2 with 8 × Xeon E7-8870 4555.54 tpsE $217.27 per tpsE 1.00 July 1, 2011 

RX300 S7 with 2 × Xeon E5-2690 1871.81 tpsE $175.57 per tpsE 0.69 August 17, 2012 

See the TPC web site for more information and all the TPC-E results (http://www.tpc.org/tpce). 

The following diagram for 2-socket PRIMERGY systems with different processor types shows the good 

performance of the 2-socket system PRIMERGY RX300 S7. 

better 

tpsE 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

523.49 

317.45 

PRIMERGY 

TX300 S4 

2 × X5460 

64 GB 

343.91 

800.00 

PRIMERGY 

RX300 S5 

2 × X5570 

96 GB 

1,246.13 

1,268.30 

191.48 183.94 

PRIMERGY 

RX300 S6 

2 × X5680 

96 GB 

1,871.81 

175.57 

In comparison with the PRIMERGY RX300 S6 the increase in performance is +48% and in comparison with 

the PRIMERGY RX300 S5 +134%. The price per performance is $175.57/tpsE. Compared with the 

PRIMERGY RX300 S6 the costs are reduced to 95% and with the PRIMERGY RX300 S5 to 51%. 


tpsE 

$/tpsE 

PRIMERGY 

RX300 S6 

2 × X5690 

96 GB 

PRIMERGY 

RX300 S7 

2 × E5-2690 

512 GB 

$/tpsE 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

better


The following overview shows the best TPC-E results (as of July 5 th , 2012) and the corresponding price per 

performance ratios for configurations using two processors. PRIMERGY RX300 S7 with 1871.71 tpsE is best 

in class with the highest performance value. The price per performance ratio of $175.57/tpsE is the secondbest 

value of the TPC-E publications considered here. 

System 

Processors 

tpsE 

(higher is better) 

$/tpsE 

(lower is better) 

See the TPC web site for more information and all the TPC-E results (http://www.tpc.org/tpce). 

availability 

date 

Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S7 2×E5-2690 1871.71 175.57 2012-08-17 

IBM System x3650 M4 2×E5-2690 1863.23 207.85 2012-05-31 

IBM System x3690 X5 2×E7-2870 1560.70 143.32 2011-05-27 

HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server 2×X5690 1284.14 250.00 2011-05-04 

Fujitsu 


12x2.5 

2×X5690 1268.30 183.94 2011-03-01 

Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S6 2×X5680 1246.13 191.48 2010-11-01 

HP ProLiant DL385 G7 Server 2×6282 SE 1232.84 257.00 2011-12-31 

HP ProLiant DL380G7 2×X5680 1110.10 294.00 2010-05-11 

Dell PowerEdge T710 2×X5680 1074.14 264.32 2010-06-21 

HP ProLiant DL385G7 2×6176 SE 887.38 296.00 2010-05-06 



The TPC-E configuration with the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 as database server has the best TPC-E 

TPC-Energy result of all TPC-E TPC-Energy publications with 0.69 Watts/tpsE. 

Compared with the TPC-E configuration with the predecessor system PRIMERGY RX300 S6 as database 

server, the energy efficiency of the overall configuration, documented in Watts/tpsE, has increased by 25%. 

All published Fujitsu TPC-E TPC-Energy results are well ahead of the two previously published results of its 

competitors. 

[Watts/tpsE] 

better 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0.69 0.93 1.00 1.09 

Fujitsu 1) 

PRIMERGY 

RX300 S7 

Fujitsu 2) 

PRIMERGY 

RX300 S6 

TPC-E 

TPC-Energy: Primery Metric 

Fujitsu 3) 

PRIMERGY 

RX900 S2 

Fujitsu 4) 

PRIMEQUEST 

1800E2 

See the TPC web site for more information as well as the TPC-E and TPC-Energy results 

(http://www.tpc.org/tpce). 

1) Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX300 S7 1871.81 tpsE, $175.57/tpsE, 0.69 Watts/tpsE, availability date 08/17/2012 



4) Fujitsu PRIMEQUEST 1800E2 4414.79 tpsE, $226.19/tpsE, 1.09 Watts/tpsE, availability date 07/01/2011 

5) HP ProLiant DL580 G7 2001.12 tpsE, $347.00/tpsE, 5.84 Watts/tpsE, availability date 06/21/2010 

6) HP ProLiant DL585 G7 1400.14 tpsE, $330.00/tpsE, 6.72 Watts/tpsE, availability date 06/21/2010 


5.84 

HP 5) 

ProLiant 

DL580 G7 

6.72 

HP 6) 

ProLiant 

DL585 G7


vServCon 


vServCon is a benchmark used by Fujitsu Technology Solutions to compare server configurations with 

hypervisor with regard to their suitability for server consolidation. This allows both the comparison of 

systems, processors and I/O technologies as well as the comparison of hypervisors, virtualization forms and 

additional drivers for virtual machines. 

vServCon is not a new benchmark in the true sense of the word. It is more a framework that combines 

already established benchmarks (or in modified form) as workloads in order to reproduce the load of a 

consolidated and virtualized server environment. Three proven benchmarks are used which cover the 

application scenarios database, application server and web server. 

Application scenario Benchmark No. of logical CPU cores Memory 

Database Sysbench (adapted) 2 1.5 GB 

Java application server SPECjbb (adapted, with 50% - 60% load) 2 2 GB 

Web server WebBench 1 1.5 GB 

Each of the three application scenarios is allocated to a dedicated virtual machine (VM). Add to these a 

fourth machine, the so-called idle VM. These four VMs make up a ―tile‖. Depending on the performance 

capability of the underlying server hardware, you may as part of a measurement also have to start several 

identical tiles in parallel in order to achieve a maximum performance score. 

Database 

VM 

Database Java 

VM 

Database 

VM 

Java 

VM 

Database 

VM 

Java 

VM VM 

System Under Test 

Java 

VM 

… … 

Web 

VM 

Web 

VM 

Web 

VM 

Idle 

VM 

Idle 

VM 

Idle 

VM 

Each of the three vServCon application scenarios provides a specific benchmark result in the form of 

application-specific transaction rates for the respective VM. In order to derive a normalized score, the 

individual benchmark results for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. 

The resulting relative performance values are then suitably weighted and finally added up for all VMs and 

tiles. The outcome is a score for this tile number. 

Starting as a rule with one tile, this procedure is performed for an increasing number of tiles until no further 

significant increase in this vServCon score occurs. The final vServCon score is then the maximum of the 

vServCon scores for all tile numbers. This score thus reflects the maximum total throughput that can be 

achieved by running the mix defined in vServCon that consists of numerous VMs up to the possible full 

utilization of CPU resources. This is why the measurement environment for vServCon measurements is 

designed in such a way that only the CPU is the limiting factor and that no limitations occur as a result of 

other resources. 

The progression of the vServCon scores for the tile numbers provides useful information about the scaling 

behavior of the ―System under Test‖. 

Moreover, vServCon also documents the total CPU load of the host (VMs and all other CPU activities) and, if 

possible, electrical power consumption. 

A detailed description of vServCon is in the document: Benchmark Overview vServCon. 


Web 

VM 

Idle 

VM 

Tile n 

Tile 3 

Tile 2 

Tile 1




All results were determined by way of example on a PRIMERGY RX350 S7. 


Hardware 



Memory 1 processor: 8 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 

2 processors: 16 × 8GB (1x8GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 

Network interface 1 × dual port 1GbE adapter 

1 × dual port 10GbE server adapter 

Disk subsystem 1 × dual-channel FC controller Emulex LPe12002 

ETERNUS DX80 storage systems: 

Each tile: 50 GB LUN 

Each LUN: RAID 0 with 2 × Seagate ST3300657SS disks (15 krpm) 

Software 

Operating system VMware ESX 5.0.0 Build 469512 

Load generator (incl. Framework controller) 

Hardware (Shared) 

Enclosure PRIMERGY BX900 

Hardware 

Model 18 × PRIMERGY BX920 S1 server blades 


Memory 12 GB 

Network interface 3 × 1 Gbit/s LAN 

Software 

Framework 

controller 

Load generators 

Multiple 

1Gb or 10Gb 

networks 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise with Hyper-V 

Server Disk subsystem 




Load generator VM (per tile 3 load generator VMs on various server blades) 

Hardware 

Processor 1 × logical CPU 

Memory 512 MB 


Software 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition 





The PRIMERGY dual-socket systems dealt with here are based on Intel Xeon series E5-2600 processors. 

The features of the processors are summarized in the section ―Technical data‖. 

The available processors of these systems with their results can be seen in the following table. 

Xeon E5-2600 Series 

Processor 

RX200 S7 

RX300 S7 

RX350 S7 


TX300 S7 

BX924 S3 

CX250 S1 

CX270 S1 

#Tiles Score 

2 Cores, HT, TM E5-2637 4 3.58 

4 Cores 

E5-2603 4 3.18 

E5-2609 4 4.09 

4 Cores, HT, TM E5-2643 4 7.02 

6 Cores 

HT, TM 

8 Cores 

HT, TM 

E5-2620 7 7.44 

E5-2630L 7 7.45 

E5-2630 7 8.30 

E5-2640 7 8.80 

E5-2667 7 9.93 

E5-2650L 8 8.77 

E5-2650 8 10.4 

E5-2660 8 11.4 

E5-2665 8 11.7 

E5-2670 8 12.5 

E5-2680 8 12.8 

E5-2690 8 13.5 

HT = Hyper-Threading, TM = Turbo Mode 

These PRIMERGY dual-socket systems are very suitable for application virtualization thanks to the progress 

made in processor technology. Compared with a system based on the previous processor generation an 

approximate 40% higher virtualization performance can be achieved (measured in vServCon score in their 

maximum configuration). 

The relatively large performance differences between the processors can be explained by their features. The 

values scale on the basis of the number of cores, the size of the L3 cache and the CPU clock frequency and 

as a result of the features of Hyper-Threading and turbo mode, which are available in most processor types. 

Furthermore, the data transfer rate between processors (―QPI Speed‖) also determines performance. As a 

matter of principle, the memory access speed also influences performance. A guideline in the virtualization 

environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more important than the speed of the 

memory accesses. 

More information about the topic ―Memory Performance‖ and QPI architecture can be found in the White 

Paper Memory Performance of Xeon E5-2600 (Sandy Bridge-EP) Based Systems.


The first diagram compares the virtualization performance values that can be achieved with the processors 

reviewed here. 

Final vServCon Score 

Final vServCon Score 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

The Xeon E5-2637 as the processor with two cores only makes the start. A similarly low performance can be 

seen in the Xeon E5-2603 and E5-2609 processors, as they have to manage without Hyper-Threading (HT) 

and turbo mode (TM). In principle, these weakest processors are only to a limited extent suitable for the 

virtualization environment. 

A further increase in performance is achieved by the processor with four cores, which supports both Hyper- 

Threading and the turbo mode (Xeon E5-2643). 

In addition to the number of cores, the L3 cache and the data transfer rate make a considerable contribution 

to the respective increase in performance in the 8-core versions compared with the 6-core versions. 

Within a group of processors with the same number of cores scaling can be seen via the CPU clock 

frequency. 

15 

10 

5 

0 

E5-2637 

2 Core 

4 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 

6.95@4 tiles 

E5-2603 

× 1.94 

E5-2609 

4 Core 

1 x E5-2690 2 x E5-2690 

13.50@8 tiles 

E5-2643 

E5-2620 

Xeon E5-2600 Processor Series 

E5-2630L 

E5-2630 

6 Core 

E5-2640 

Until now we have looked at the virtualization performance of a fully 

configured system. However, with a server with two sockets the 

question also arises as to how good performance scaling is from 

one to two processors. The better the scaling, the lower the 

overhead usually caused by the shared use of resources within a 

server. The scaling factor also depends on the application. If the 

server is used as a virtualization platform for server consolidation, 

the system scales with a factor of 1.94. When operated with two 

processors, the system thus almost achieves twice the performance 

as with one processor, as is illustrated in the diagram opposite 

using the processor version Xeon E5-2690 as an example. 


E5-2667 

E5-2650L 

E5-2650 

E5-2660 

E5-2665 

8 Core 

E5-2670 

E5-2680 

E5-2690 

#Tiles


The next diagram illustrates the virtualization performance for increasing numbers of VMs based on the 

Xeon E5-2620 (6-Core) and E5-2650 (8-Core) processors. The respective CPU loads of the host have also 

been entered. The number of tiles with optimal CPU load is typically at about 90%; beyond that you have 

overload, which is where virtualization 

performance no longer increases, or 

sinks again. 

12 

E5-2620 E5-2650 

100% 

In addition to the increased number of 

physical cores, Hyper-Threading, 

which is supported by almost all Xeon 

processors of the E5-2600 series, is 

10 

---- CPU Util % 

90% 

80% 

an additional reason for the high 

number of VMs that can be operated. 

As is known, a physical processor 

8 

70% 

60% 

core is consequently divided into two 

logical cores so that the number of 

6 

50% 

cores available for the hypervisor is 

40% 

doubled. This standard feature thus 

generally increases the virtualization 

4 

30% 

performance of a system. 

2 

20% 

vServCon score 

0 

1.97 

3.83 

The scaling curves for the number of tiles as seen in the previous diagram are specifically for systems with 

Hyper-Threading. 16 physical and thus 32 logical cores are available with the Xeon E5-2650 processors; 

approximately four of them are used per tile (see Benchmark description). This means that a parallel use of 

the same physical cores by several VMs is avoided up to a maximum of about four tiles. That is why the 

performance curve in this range scales almost ideal. For the quantities above the growth is flatter up to CPU 

full utilization. 

The previous diagram examined the total performance of all application VMs of a host. However, studying 

the performance from an individual application VM viewpoint is also interesting. This information is in the 

previous diagram. For example, the total optimum is reached in the above Xeon E5-2650 situation with 24 

application VMs (eight tiles, not including the idle VMs); the low load case is represented by three application 

VMs (one tile, not including the idle VM). Remember: the vServCon score for one tile is an average value 

across the three application scenarios in vServCon. This average performance of one tile drops when 

changing from the low load case to the total optimum of the vServCon score - from 2.02 to 10.4/8=1.3, i.e. to 

64%. The individual types of application VMs can react very differently in the high load situation. It is thus 

clear that in a specific situation the performance requirements of an individual application must be balanced 

against the overall requirements regarding the numbers of VMs on a virtualization host. 


5.35 

6.39 

7.20 

7.38 

7.44 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

2.02 

4.22 

5.96 

7.46 

8.64 

9.59 

10.1 

10.4 

10% 

0% 

#Tiles


The virtualization-relevant progress in processor technology since 2008 has an effect on the one hand on an 

individual VM and, on the other hand, on the possible maximum number of VMs up to CPU full utilization. 

The following comparison shows the proportions for both types of improvements. Four systems are 

compared with approximately the same processor frequency: a system from 2008 with 2 × Xeon E5420, a 

system from 2009 with 2 × Xeon E5540, a system from 2011 with 2 × Xeon E5649 and a current system with 

2 × Xeon E5-2670. 

vServCon Score 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

× 1.30 

2008 

E5420 

2.50 GHz 

4C 

2009 

E5540 

2.53 GHz 

4C 

2011 

E5649 

2.53 GHz 

6C 

2012 

E5-2670 

2.60 GHz 

8C 

2008 

E5420 

2.50 GHz 

4C 

2009 

E5540 

2.53 GHz 

4C 

2011 

E5649 

2.53 GHz 

6C 

2012 

E5-2670 

2.60 GHz 

8C 

Year 

CPU 

Freq. 

#Cores 


× 2.02 

× 1.47 

× 1.64 

2012 TX300 S7 RX200 S7 RX300 S7 RX350 S7 - - BX924 S3 CX250 S1 CX270 S1 

2011 TX300 S6 RX200 S6 RX300 S6 TX300 S6 BX620 S6 BX922 S2 BX924 S2 - - 

2009 TX300 S5 RX200 S5 RX300 S5 - BX620 S5 - - - - 

2008 TX300 S4 RX200 S4 RX300 S4 - BX620 S4 - - - - 

The clearest performance improvements arose from 2008 to 2009 with the introduction of the Xeon 5500 

processor generation (e. g. via the feature ―Extended Page Tables‖ (EPT) 1 ). One sees an increase of the 

vServCon score by a factor of 1.30 with a few VMs (one tile). 

With full utilization of the systems with VMs there was an increase by a factor of 2.02. The one reason was 

the performance increase that could be achieved for an individual VM (see score for a few VMs). The other 

reason was that more VMs were possible with total optimum (via Hyper-Threading). However, it can be seen 

that the optimum was ―bought‖ with a triple number of VMs with a reduced performance of the individual VM. 

Where exactly is the technology progress between 2009 and 2012? The performance for an individual VM in 

low-load situations has basically remained the same for the processors compared here with approximately 

the same clock frequency but with different cache size and speed of memory connection. The decisive 

progress is in the higher number of physical cores and – associated with it – in the increased values of pure 

performance (factor 1.47 and 1.64 in the diagram). 

We must explicitly point out that the increased virtualization performance as seen in the score cannot be 

completely deemed as an improvement for one individual VM. More than approximately 30% to 50% 

increased throughput compared to an identically clocked processor of the Xeon 5400 generation from 2008 

is not possible here. Performance increases in the virtualization environment since 2009 are mainly achieved 

by increased VM numbers due to the increased number of available logical or physical cores. 

1 EPT accelerates memory virtualization via hardware support for the mapping between host and guest memory 

addresses. 

Few VMs (1 Tile) 

Virtualization relevant improvements 

Score at optimum Tile count


VMmark V2 


VMmark V2 is a benchmark developed by VMware to compare server configurations with hypervisor 

solutions from VMware regarding their suitability for server consolidation. In addition to the software for load 

generation, the benchmark consists of a defined load profile and binding regulations. The benchmark results 

can be submitted to VMware and are published on their Internet site after a successful review process. After 

the discontinuation of the proven benchmark ―VMmark V1‖ in October 2010, it has been succeeded by 

―VMmark V2‖, which requires a cluster of at least two servers and covers data center functions, like Cloning 

and Deployment of virtual machines (VMs), Load Balancing, as well as the moving of VMs with vMotion and 

also Storage vMotion. 

VMmark V2 is not a new benchmark in the actual sense. 

It is in fact a framework that consolidates already 

established benchmarks, as workloads in order to 

simulate the load of a virtualized consolidated server 

environment. Three proven benchmarks, which cover 

the application scenarios mail server, Web 2.0, and 

e-commerce were integrated in VMmark V2. 

Application scenario Load tool # VMs 

Mail server LoadGen 1 

Web 2.0 Olio client 2 

E-commerce DVD Store 2 client 4 

Standby server (IdleVMTest) 1 

Each of the three application scenarios is assigned to a total of seven dedicated virtual machines. Then add 

to these an eighth VM called the ―standby server‖. These eight VMs form a ―tile‖. Because of the 

performance capability of the underlying server hardware, it is usually necessary to have started several 

identical tiles in parallel as part of a measurement in order to achieve a maximum overall performance. 

A new feature of VMmark V2 is an infrastructure component, which is present once for every two hosts. It 

measures the efficiency levels of data center consolidation through VM Cloning and Deployment, vMotion 

and Storage vMotion. The Load Balancing capacity of the data center is also used (DRS, Distributed 

Resource Scheduler). 

The result of VMmark V2 is a number, known as a ―score‖, which provides information about the 

performance of the measured virtualization solution. The score reflects the maximum total consolidation 

benefit of all VMs for a server configuration with hypervisor and is used as a comparison criterion of various 

hardware platforms. 

This score is determined from the individual results of the VMs and an infrastructure result. Each of the five 

VMmark V2 application or front-end VMs provides a specific benchmark result in the form of applicationspecific 

transaction rates for each VM. In order to derive a normalized score the individual benchmark results 

for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. The resulting dimensionless 

performance values are then averaged geometrically and finally added up for all VMs. This value is included 

in the overall score with a weighting of 80%. The infrastructure workload is only present in the benchmark 

once for every two hosts; it determines 20% of the result. The number of transactions per hour and the 

average duration in seconds respectively are determined for the score of the infrastructure workload 

components. 

In addition to the actual score, the number of VMmark V2 tiles is always specified with each VMmark V2 

score. The result is thus as follows: ―Score@Number of Tiles‖, for example ―4.20@5 tiles‖. 

A detailed description of VMmark V2 is available in the document Benchmark Overview VMmark V2. 






Hardware 

Number of servers 2 



Memory 256 GB: 16 × 16 GB (1x16GB) 2Rx4 L DDR3-1600 R ECC 

Network interface 1 × dual port 1GbE adapter 

1 × dual port 10GbE server adapter 

1 × quad port 1GbE adapter 

Disk subsystem 1 × dual-channel FC controller Emulex LPe12002 

ETERNUS DX80 S1 and S2 storage systems: 

Each tile: 241 GB 

Each DX80: RAID 0 with several LUNs 

Total: 118 disks (incl. SSDs) 

Software 

Clients & Management 

Load Generators 

incl. Prime Client and 

Datacenter Management 

Server 

BIOS Version V4.6.5.1 R1.4.0 

BIOS settings See details 

Operating system VMware ESX 4.1.0 U2 Build 502767 


settings 

Multiple 

1Gb or 10Gb 

networks 

ESX settings: see details 

vMotion 

network 

Server(s) Storage System 

System under Test (SUT) 



Prime Client/Datacenter Management Server (DMS) 

Hardware (Shared) 

Enclosure PRIMERGY BX600 

Network Switch 1 × PRIMERGY BX600 GbE Switch Blade 30/12 

Hardware 

Model 1 × server blade PRIMERGY BX620 S4 


Memory 4 GB 


Software 

Operating system Prime Client: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition SP2, KB955839 

DMS: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2, KB955839 

Load generator 

Hardware 



Memory 512 GB 


2 × 10 Gbit/s LAN 

Software 

Operating system VMware ESX 4.1.0 U2 Build 502767 

Load generator VM (per tile 1 load generator VM) 

Hardware 

Processor 4 × logical CPU 

Memory 4 GB 


Software 

Operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2 

Details 

See disclosure http://www.vmware.com/a/assets/vmmark/pdf/2012-05-01-Fujitsu-RX300S7.pdf 





On May 1, 2012 Fujitsu achieved with a PRIMERGY RX300 S7 with Xeon E5-2690 processors and VMware 

ESX 4.1.0 U2 a VMmark V2 score of ―11.02@10 tiles‖ in a system configuration with a total of 2 × 16 

processor cores and when using two identical servers in the ―System under Test‖ (SUT). With this result the 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 is in the official VMmark V2 ranking one of the most powerful 2-socket servers in a 

―matched pair‖ configuration consisting of two identical hosts (valid as of benchmark results publication 

date). 

The current VMmark V2 results as well as the detailed results and configuration data are available at 

http://www.vmware.com/a/vmmark/. 

VMmark V2 Score 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Comparison of system generations 

11.02@10 tiles 

2 × Fujitsu 


2 × Xeon 

E5-2690 

x1.45 

7.59@7 tiles 

2 × Fujitsu 


2 × Xeon 

X5690 

In comparison with a PRIMERGY system of the 

predecessor generation with Xeon X5690 processors 

an increase in performance of about 45% is achieved 

with VMmark V2. 

The opposite diagram shows the result of the 

PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in comparison with the 

predecessor system PRIMERGY RX300 S6. 

The processors used, which with a good hypervisor setting could make optimal use of their processor 

features, were the essential prerequisites for achieving the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 result. These features 

include Hyper-Threading. All this has a particularly positive effect during virtualization. 

All VMs, their application data, the host operating system as well as additionally required data were on a 

powerful fibre channel disk subsystem from ETERNUS DX80 systems. As far as possible, the configuration 

of the disk subsystem takes the specific requirements of the benchmark into account. The use of SSDs 

(Solid State Disk) in the powerful ETERNUS DX80 S2 resulted in further advantages in response times of 

the hard disks used. 

The network connection of the load generators and the infrastructure workload connection between the hosts 

were implemented with the 10Gb LAN ports. 

All the components used were optimally attuned to each other. 



STREAM 


STREAM is a synthetic benchmark that has been used for many years to determine memory throughput and 

which was developed by John McCalpin during his professorship at the University of Delaware. Today 

STREAM is supported at the University of Virginia, where the source code can be downloaded in either 

Fortran or C. STREAM continues to play an important role in the HPC environment in particular. It is for 

example an integral part of the HPC Challenge benchmark suite. 

The benchmark is designed in such a way that it can be used both on PCs and on server systems. The unit 

of measurement of the benchmark is GB/s, i.e. the number of gigabytes that can be read and written per 

second. 

STREAM measures the memory throughput for sequential accesses. These can generally be performed 

more efficiently than accesses that are randomly distributed on the memory, because the CPU caches are 

used for sequential access. 

Before execution the source code is adapted to the environment to be measured. Therefore, the size of the 

data area must be at least four times larger than the total of all CPU caches so that these have as little 

influence as possible on the result. The OpenMP program library is used to enable selected parts of the 

program to be executed in parallel during the runtime of the benchmark, consequently achieving optimal load 

distribution to the available processor cores. 

During implementation the defined data area, consisting of 8-byte elements, is successively copied to four 

types, and arithmetic calculations are also performed to some extent. 

Type Execution Bytes per step Floating-point calculation per step 

COPY a(i) = b(i) 16 0 

SCALE a(i) = q × b(i) 16 1 

SUM a(i) = b(i) + c(i) 24 1 

TRIAD a(i) = b(i) + q × c(i) 24 2 

The throughput is output in GB/s for each type of calculation. The differences between the various values are 

usually only minor on modern systems. In general, only the determined TRIAD value is used as a 

comparison. 

The measured results primarily depend on the clock frequency of the memory modules; the CPUs influence 

the arithmetic calculations. The accuracy of the results is approximately 5%. 

This chapter specifies throughputs on a basis of 10 (1 GB/s = 10 9 Byte/s). 



Hardware 


Processor 2 processors of Xeon E5-2600 processor series 


Software 

BIOS settings Hyper-Threading = Disabled 



settings 

Compiler Intel C Compiler 12.1 

Benchmark Stream.c Version 5.9 

echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/redhat_transparent_hugepage/enabled 





Processor Cores Processor 

Frequency 

[Ghz] 

Max. Memory 

Frequency 

[MHz] 

TRIAD 

[GB/s] 

2 × Xeon E5-2637 2 3.00 1600 41.1 

2 × Xeon E5-2603 4 1.80 1067 48.1 

2 × Xeon E5-2609 4 2.40 1067 53.9 

2 × Xeon E5-2643 4 3.30 1600 75.4 

2 × Xeon E5-2630L 6 2.00 1333 68.7 

2 × Xeon E5-2620 6 2.00 1333 68.7 

2 × Xeon E5-2630 6 2.30 1333 69.8 

2 × Xeon E5-2640 6 2.50 1333 70.3 

2 × Xeon E5-2667 6 2.90 1600 81.5 

2 × Xeon E5-2650L 8 1.80 1600 71.4 

2 × Xeon E5-2650 8 2.00 1600 77.0 

2 × Xeon E5-2660 8 2.20 1600 78.5 

2 × Xeon E5-2665 8 2.40 1600 79.3 

2 × Xeon E5-2670 8 2.60 1600 80.0 

2 × Xeon E5-2680 8 2.70 1600 79.5 

2 × Xeon E5-2690 8 2.90 1600 80.7 

The results depend primarily on the maximum memory frequency. The Xeon E5-2637, which with only 2 

cores does not use all 4 channels of the memory controller in the STREAM benchmark, is the exception. The 

smaller differences with processors with the same maximum memory frequency are a result in arithmetic 

calculation of the different processor frequencies. 

The following diagram illustrates the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in comparison to its 

predecessor, the PRIMERGY RX300 S6, in their most performant configuration. 

GB/s 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

STREAM TRIAD: 

PRIMERGY RX300S7 vs. PRIMERGY RX300S6 

41.4 


2 × Xeon X5667 

81.5 


2 × Xeon E5-2667 



LINPACK 


LINPACK was developed in the 1970s by Jack Dongarra and some other people to show the performance of 

supercomputers. The benchmark consists of a collection of library functions for the analysis and solution of 

linear system of equations. A description can be found in the document 

http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/hplpaper.pdf. 

LINPACK can be used to measure the speed of a computer during the solution of an N–dimensional linear 

system of equations. The result is specified in GFlops (Giga Floating Point Operations per Second). It is a 

measure of how many floating-point operations can be carried out per second. The number of floating-point 

operations required for the solution is determined by the formula 

2 /3 × N 3 + 2 × N 2. 

For the calculation LINPACK requires a matrix of size N × N in the main memory with the value N standing 

for the number of equations to be solved. Maximum performance is achieved if the available main memory 

can be fully used as a result of choosing this value. However, the determination of this limit is very timeconsuming 

and the expected increase in the result is only minor. The memory bandwidth of the system also 

has hardly any impact on the result, because floating-point calculations are chiefly carried out during the run 

and data exchange only seldom takes place between the parallel processes. Thus the benchmark result is 

determined for a value of N that is somewhat below the maximum value. 

LINPACK is classed as one of the leading benchmarks in the field of high performance computing (HPC). 

LINPACK is one of the seven benchmarks currently included in the HPC Challenge benchmark suite, which 

takes other performance aspects in the HPC environment into account. 

Intel offers a LINPACK version that has been highly optimized for individual systems with Intel processors. 

The optimal parameter values are autonomously determined by the software on the basis of the current 

processor architecture. Another version provided by Intel is based on hpl (High-Performance Linpack) for 

use on distributed systems, with the intercommunication of the servers taking place via Message Passing 

Interface (MPI). In the case of this version the parameter values are set via a configuration file. Both versions 

can be downloaded from http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-library-linpack-download/. 

It is possible to publish LINPACK results at http://www.top500.org/. Prerequisite for this is the use of an MPIbased 

(Message Passing Interface) version. (See: http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/hpl) 

The maximum theoretical performance of a processor core follows from the number of floating-point 

operations that are performed within a clock cycle. Thus e.g. a single processor core with a clock frequency 

of 2.4 GHz and 4 floating-point operations per cycle would achieve a maximum performance of 9.6 GFlops. 

The ratio of the measured result to the maximum value shows the efficiency of the system for floating-point 

calculations. The fewer memory accesses required during the calculation, the better the ratio. 

Manufacturer-specific LINPACK versions are also used when graphics cards are used for general purpose 

computation on a graphics processing unit (GPGPU). They are based on hpl and contain extensions which 

are needed for communication with the graphics cards. During runtime the compute load is distributed over 

the system processors and the processors of the graphics cards according to a ratio specified by the user. 

The LINPACK result accordingly consists of the total performance of the system processors and graphics 

cards, with the system processors not achieving the result that would be possible without a graphics card on 

account of the data transfer between main memory and graphics card. 





Hardware 


Processor 2 processors of Xeon E5-2600 processor series 


Software 

BIOS settings Hyper-Threading = Disabled 


Benchmark xlinpack_xeon64 from Intel Compiler 12.1 





The available main memory of 128 GB permits a dimension of N = 120000. 

Processor Cores Processor 

frequency 

[Ghz] 

Maximum turbo 

frequency at full load 

[Ghz] 

Theoretical 

maximum 

[GFlops] 

LINPACK 

[GFlops] 

Efficiency 

2 × Xeon E5-2637 2 3.00 3.50 112 101 90 

2 × Xeon E5-2603 4 1.80 n/a 115 106 92 

2 × Xeon E5-2609 4 2.40 n/a 154 140 91 

2 × Xeon E5-2643 4 3.30 3.40 218 198 91 

2 × Xeon E5-2630L 6 2.00 2.30 221 192 87 

2 × Xeon E5-2620 6 2.00 2.30 221 204 92 

2 × Xeon E5-2630 6 2.30 2.60 250 229 92 

2 × Xeon E5-2640 6 2.50 2.80 269 247 92 

2 × Xeon E5-2667 6 2.90 3.20 307 282 92 

2 × Xeon E5-2650L 8 1.80 2.00 256 232 91 

2 × Xeon E5-2650 8 2.00 2.40 307 280 91 

2 × Xeon E5-2660 8 2.20 2.70 346 285 82 

2 × Xeon E5-2665 8 2.40 2.80 358 314 88 

2 × Xeon E5-2670 8 2.60 3.00 384 318 83 

2 × Xeon E5-2680 8 2.70 3.10 397 347 87 

2 × Xeon E5-2690 8 2.90 3.30 422 352 83 

A theoretical maximum value can be calculated for processors without Turbo mode with the formula 

GFlopsmax = Number of floating-point operations per clock cycle × Number of processor cores 

× Processor frequency[GHz] 

Processors that have Turbo mode are not limited by the nominal processor frequency and therefore do not 

provide a constant processor frequency. In this case, the actual processor frequency lies between the 

nominal processor frequency and the maximum turbo frequency at full load. To calculate the theoretical 

maximum the following formula is used for these processors: 

GFlopsmax = Number of floating-point operations per clock cycle × Number of processor cores 

× Maximum turbo frequency at full load[GHz] 

The following diagram illustrates the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX300 S7 in comparison to its 

predecessor, the PRIMERGY RX300 S6, in their most performant configuration. 

GFlops 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

LINPACK: 


160 


2 × Xeon X5690 

352 


2 × Xeon E5-2690 


[%]


Literature 

PRIMERGY Systems 

http://primergy.com/ 


Data sheet 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=9ee3857c-e1e6-44b5-b872-babd34b11188 

Memory performance of Xeon E5-2600/4600 (Sandy Bridge-EP)-based systems 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=a17dbb55-c43f-4ac8-886a-7950cb27ec2a 

PRIMERGY Performance 

http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/products/computing/servers/primergy/benchmarks/ 

Disk I/O 

Basics of Disk I/O Performance 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=65781a00-556f-4a98-90a7-7022feacc602 

Single Disk Performance 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0e30cb69-44db-4cd5-92a7-d38bacec6a99 

RAID Controller Performance 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e2489893-cab7-44f6-bff2-7aeea97c5aef 

Information about Iometer 

http://www.iometer.org 

LINPACK 

http://www.netlib.org/linpack/ 

OLTP-2 

Benchmark Overview OLTP-2 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e6f7a4c9-aff6-4598-b199-836053214d3f 

SAP SD 

http://www.sap.com/benchmark 

Benchmark overview SAP SD 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0a1e69a6-e366-4fd1-a1a6-0dd93148ea10 

SPECcpu2006 

http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2006 

Benchmark overview SPECcpu2006 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=1a427c16-12bf-41b0-9ca3-4cc360ef14ce 

SPECjbb2005 

http://www.spec.org/jbb2005 

Benchmark overview SPECjbb2005 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=5411e8f9-8c56-4ee9-9b3b-98981ab3e820 


http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008 

Benchmark Overview SPECpower_ssj2008 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=166f8497-4bf0-4190-91a1-884b90850ee0 

STREAM 

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/ 




http://www.tpc.org/tpce 

Benchmark Overview TPC-E 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=da0ce7b7-3d80-48cd-9b3a-d12e0b40ed6d 

VMmark V2 

Benchmark Overview VMmark V2 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=2b61a08f-52f4-4067-bbbf-dc0b58bee1bd 

VMmark V2 

http://www.vmmark.com 

VMmark V2 Results 

http://www.vmware.com/a/vmmark/ 

vServCon 

Benchmark Overview vServCon 

http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=b953d1f3-6f98-4b93-95f5-8c8ba3db4e59 

Contact 

FUJITSU 

Website: http://www.fujitsu.com/ 

PRIMERGY Product Marketing 

mailto:Primergy-PM@ts.fujitsu.com 

PRIMERGY Performance and Benchmarks 

mailto:primergy.benchmark@ts.fujitsu.com 

All rights reserved, including intellectual property rights. Technical data subject to modifications and delivery subject to availability. Any liability that the data 

and illustrations are complete, actual or correct is excluded. Designations may be trademarks and/or copyrights of the respective manufacturer, the use of 

which by third parties for their own purposes may infringe the rights of such owner. 

For further information see http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/resources/navigation/terms-of-use.html 

2012-10-09 WW EN Copyright © Fujitsu Technology Solutions 2012

Performance report primergy rx300 s7 - fujitsu global

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?