The Advantage of IBM Power Systems
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Power Systems continues a 7+ year run of growth
Sun SPARC and HP/Itanium continue in decline
UNIX Server Rolling Four Quarter Average Revenue Share
Source: IDC Quarterly Server Tracker 2Q09 release, September 2009
2
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
What drives Power Systems growth?
1
2
3
3
Power Scale-up / out / within leadership
Power Virtualization leadership
SPARC, PA-RISC, Itanium and now
x86 users are moving to Power
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
1
Power Scale-up, Scale-out
and Scale-within leadership
Over four decades of running the largest, most mission-critical applications
 Power Systems continue leadership
in the primary requirements for large
scale computing
– Efficient Scalability
– Performance
– Reliability, Availability, and
Serviceability
– Manageability
8-64 core systems ARE Scale-up computing - where other x86 vendors are untested
4
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Xeon 7500 will extend Nehalem architecture to four & eight socket systems
“A MONSTER CHIP IS COMING. The next generation of MP processor is targeted
for production later this year, and by all accounts it is going to be a monster.
Nehalem-EX is part of the Nehalem family of processors, but compared to its siblings
it has the highest cores/threads count, largest shared cache, highest CPU-to-CPU
bandwidth, highest I/O bandwidth, highest memory capacity, highest memory
bandwidth, greatest scalability, and highest level of
Reliability/Availability/Serviceability. It’s expected to bring a gargantuan,
unprecedented leap in capabilities and performance--the biggest leap in all of Xeon
product history.”
from a blog posted by Matt_K on Jun 8, 2009 5:45:18 PM available at www.intel.com
Xeon 5500 vs Xeon 5400
per socket or per core
Xeon 7500 vs Xeon 7400 per
socket
Database Transactions
2.5
2.5
Integer throughput
1.7
1.7
Floating point throughput
2.2
2.2
Memory
2.3
2.0
Memory Bandwidth
3.5
9.0
Comparison according to
Intel
Source: Intel Server Update, May 26, 2009 available at http://download.intel.com/pressroom/pdf/nehalem-ex.pdf
5
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
The 2007 570 is 28% faster than 2010 Xeon 5570 on TPC-C
The Latest Power 570 5.0GHz system is even faster
Virtualized Power performance beats Native Xeon
For complete TPCC results, go to
www.tpc.org
tpmC
4.7GHz IBM Power 570
(8 chips, 16 cores, 32 threads)
HP ProLiant DL370 G6
(2 chips, 8 cores, 16 threads)
6
Price / tpmC
Data base
Systems Availability
1,616,162
3.54 USD
Enterprise
11/21/07
> 21 months ago
631,766
1.08 USD
Standard
03/30/09
>4 months ago
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
POWER6 beats Intel’s best on per core performance
Database & Web application server licensing benefits
from better per core performance
7
See slide “Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Power Systems offer unmatched scalability
>9.5 times the Xeon 5500 throughput for OLTP
>4 times the Xeon 7500 throughput for integer
8
See slide “Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
It’s about the system – not just the chip
Power Systems offers balanced systems design with the bandwidth
to get the most performance and scalability from the processor
9
See slide “Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Power Systems offer near-linear scalability
Balanced systems design allows for
linear performance as core-count and
utilization increases
10
See slide “Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
ITIC Survey says Power Systems with AIX deliver 99.997% uptime
- 54% of IT executives and managers say that they require 99.99% or better availability for their applications

Power Systems with AIX delivers the best
RAS of UNIX, Linux, Windows choices
1. Availability: The least amount of
downtime
 15 minutes a year
 2.3 times better than the closest
UNIX competitor
 more than 10X better than
Windows
2. Reliability: The fewest unscheduled
outages
 less than one outage per year
3. Serviceability: The fastest patch
time
 11 minutes to apply a patch
Source: Network World, dated July 14, 2009, reports on the 2009 ITIC Global Server Hardware & Server OS Reliability Survey Results
11
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
So why would anyone buy an Itanium server?
 THE RECENT LAUNCH of Intel's Dunnington based six-core Xeon
processors won't spell the end for the Itanium family.
– Despite the significant performance gains of the new x86 based
Xeon's, the company has confirmed that Itanium continues to be
a viable choice for some customers primarily due to the
'Reliability – Availability – Serviceability' (RAS) features
implemented in the VLIW based Itaniums.
– Joachim Aertebjerg, Intel's Server Product Line director. quoted in
“Dunnington won't sink Itanic says Intel”, By Ian Williams, Thursday,
18 September 2008, 09:11
 Nehalem-EX will add new reliability, availability, and serviceability
(RAS) features traditionally found in the company’s Intel® Itanium
processor family, such as Machine Check Architecture (MCA)
recovery.
– Intel Previews Intel Xeon ‘Nehalem-EX’ Processor, May 26, 2009
Press Briefing
12
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Power Systems RAS is designed for the toughest applications –
from the same people who defined what “mainframe-class” means
RAS Feature
POWER6
SPARC
Integrity
Xeon
Live Partition Mobility
Yes
No
No
Yes
Live Application Mobility
Yes
No
No
No
Partition Availability priority
Yes
No
No
No
OS independent First Failure Data Capture
Yes
No
No
No
Redundant System Interconnect
No
Yes
No
No
Memory Keys
Yes
No
No
No
Processor Instruction Retry
Yes
Yes
No
No
Alternate Processor Recovery
Yes
No
No
No
Dynamic Processor Deallocation
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Dynamic Processor Sparing
Yes
Yes2
Yes2
No
Chipkill™
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Redundant Memory
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Application/Partition RAS
System RAS
Processor RAS
Memory RAS
I/O RAS
Extended Error Handling
#1,2,3 - See “POWER6 RAS” in backup; See the following URLs for addition
details:http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/availability.html
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/virtualization.html
13
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Common management architecture and components to
maximize resource utilization across the enterprise
Integrated visibility, control & automation across
heterogeneous business and technology assets
Align IT operations with the business
Govern and control the business
Optimize the business
Detailed platform & virtualization management of IBM systems
 Consolidated management across systems, networks and storage
 Integrated physical and virtual management across platforms
 Automated physical and virtual provisioning
Platform
Management
Virtualization
Management
Service
Management
Integrated management to enable
the delivery of critical business services
14
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
1
Power Scale-up, Scale-out
and Scale-within leadership
Over four decades of running the largest, most mission-critical applications
 Power Systems continue leadership in the primary requirements for large scale
computing
–
–
–
–
Efficient Scalability
Performance
RAS
Manageability
*
*
*
*
>9.5 times the systems throughput of Xeon 5500
28% more OLTP throughput per core
Best reliability, best availability, best serviceability
The glue that lets you convert capability to service
IBM Power Systems has proven experience in scale-up, scale-out and scale-within
computing providing predictable, consistent performance.
15
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
2
Power Virtualization leadership
Celebrating 10 years of Power virtualization.
 Power Systems continue leadership in
the primary requirements for
consolidation
– Choice of consolidating within an
operating environment (OE) or
consolidating multiple OEs
– All applications run in a virtualized
environment
– Low overhead virtualization
– Balanced scalability for a wide variety
of applications
– Manageability
1967
1973
1987
IBM
announces
physical
partitioning
IBM
announces
LPAR
1999
2004
2007
IBM
announces
LPAR on
POWER™
IBM intro’s
POWER
Hypervisor™
IBM
announces
Live
Partition
Mobility
IBM
develops
hypervisor
for VM on
mainframe
x86 virtualization is developing and dependent on pieces from multiple vendors.
16
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
The challenge of scale out computing
Typical serving running a single application is
< 20% utilized
 Configuration planned for growth
(20% unused?)
What you pay for
 Configuration planned for peaks
(50% unused?)
 System waits for I/O and memory
access even when it is working
(20% unused?)
What you get

Single workload on a single system
–
–
Average Utilization: 20.7%
Peak: 79%
80% of the hardware, software, maintenance, floor space, and energy
that you pay for, is wasted
17
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Reduce cost: Why is scalability important?
 The #1 reason IT managers deploy virtualization solutions is workload consolidation
– Put simply, the more workloads that can be encapsulated within VMs and combined
onto a single server, the higher the consolidation ratio and greater the cost reduction
– The integrated combination of POWER architecture and PowerVM makes possible far
higher consolidation ratios than the x86 architecture and VMware vSphere
18
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
IBM Confidential
Reduce cost: PowerVM delivers superior scalability to
maximize consolidation and drive down IT costs
VMware ESX 3.5
VMware ESX 4.0
(in VMware Infrastructure 3)
(in VMware vSphere 4)
4
8
64
64 GB
255 GB
4096 GB
Virtual NICs per VM
4
10
256
CPUs per physical server
32
64
64
256 GB
1024 GB
4096 GB
Scalability Factors
Virtual CPUs per VM
Memory per VM
Memory per physical
server
PowerVM
Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf
19
IBM Power Systems
Reduce cost: Scalability of virtual CPUs
 VMware vSphere 4
– No more than 8 virtual CPUs can be assigned to a single VM (up from 4 in prior version)
– The 8 virtual CPUs option is only available in the high-end Enterprise Plus edition
– This constraint limits the type of high-end workloads that can be virtualized
– Note: It does not matter if more than 8 CPU cores are available on the physical host
(Example: a four-socket Nehalem EX x86 system will have 32 total cores, but a single
VM cannot be configured to use all 32 of those cores)
 PowerVM
– Can assign as many CPU cores as are available on the physical host
(Example: a VM (LPAR) can use all 64 cores on a Power 595)
– Each virtual CPU can run two threads, resulting in a maximum of 128 threads per VM
– Result: A more effective solution for CPU-intensive workloads
Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf
20
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Improve service: PowerVM delivers superior flexibility to
optimize IT resource utilization and boost responsiveness
VMware ESX 3.5
VMware ESX 4.0
(in VMware Infrastructure 3)
(in VMware vSphere 4)
Dynamic virtual CPU
changes in VM
No
Add (but not Remove)
Yes
Dynamic memory
changes in VM
No
Add (but not Remove)
Yes
Dynamic I/O device
changes in VM
No
No
Yes
Direct access to I/O
devices from within VM
No
Some (with Nehalem)
Yes
Maximum simultaneous
live migrations
4
4
8
Flexibility Factors
PowerVM
Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf
21
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Every Power Systems benchmark published since July, 2004 has
been run in a virtualized environment with the hypervisor active
Over 70 leadership benchmarks published in last 5 years
22
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Improve service: Consolidating diverse
enterprise workloads
 VMware vSphere 4
– Only supports native x86-based workloads – mainly Windows and Linux/x86
– No plans to extend support to workloads created for other architectures
– Management tool (vCenter) is limited to an x86-only subset of IT infrastructure
– Perpetuates ‘silos of virtualization’ that require multiple management tools
 PowerVM
– Supports all workloads built for AIX, IBM i and Linux (including Linux/x86)
– IBM Systems Director can manage VMware, Xen, Hyper-V, KVM, PowerVM,
and z/VM virtualized workloads with VMControl
– Scales to support the most demanding mission-critical workloads
Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf
23
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Scale within simplifies the data center
Server 0
Server 1
SCALE-OUT:
Cables, routers, & switches are:
additional points of failure
difficult to keep track of
expensive to maintain
Server 2
Server 3
Server 4
SAN Switch 0
SAN Switch 1
Disk Farm 1
Disk Farm 2
Server 0
Part. 0
Part. 1
Part. 2
VIOS Partition 0
SCALE-WITHIN:
Up to 90% reduction in cables,
switch volume, adapters
24
Server 5
Server 6
Server 7
Server 1
Part. 3
Part. 4
Part. 5
Part. 6
Part. 7
VIOS Partition 1
SAN Switch 0
SAN Switch 1
Disk Farm 1
Disk Farm 2
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
2

1.
2.
3.
4.
Power Virtualization leadership
Only PowerVM allows you to completely virtualize your datacenter
Power Systems continue leadership in
primary consolidation requirements:
Support for “virtualize everything”
including large production workloads
Built in virtualization so you get the
performance you expect
Infrastructure designed for virtualization with
superior bandwidth to support a wide
variety of applications
Multi-platform manageability to support
Power, z, and x systems with a single
management system
A 40-year tradition continues
1967
1973
1987
IBM
announces
physical
partitioning
IBM
announces
LPAR
1999
2004
2007
IBM
announces
LPAR on
POWER™
IBM intro’s
POWER
Hypervisor™
IBM
announces
Live
Partition
Mobility
IBM
develops
hypervisor
for VM on
mainframe
For over 10 years, IBM Power Systems has been fine-tuning highly integrated systems
designed from the ground up for industrial strength virtualization.
25
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
3
SPARC, PA-RISC, Itanium and now
x86 users are moving to Power
 Clients are migrating to Power
– Migration expertise
– Dependable roadmap
– Consolidation value
As SPARC and Itanium decline, UNIX clients
are likely to have two major choices - Power or x86.
26
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Competitive migrations to IBM Power
More than 1,750 IBM Migration Factory wins to date
Competitive displacements
2009 momentum
• Wins from Sun grew 111% QTQ
• Wins from HP grew 44% QTQ
89% of migrations from Sun and HP
(FY2006 through 1H2009)
27
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Save up to 93% in annual energy costs!
By consolidating 34 16-core Sun V890s into
ONE rack of Power 570 systems
--Reduce floor space required by 93%
--Reduce processing cores by over 88%
34 Sun V890s
(@ 20% utilization)
 544 total cores @ 2.1 GHz
 Over 109 sq. ft. of floor space required
 up to 1,442 MWh annual energy
One Rack of Power 570s
(@ 60% utilization)
 64 total cores @ 4.2 GHz
 Only 1 Rack – 7.6 sq. ft of floor space
 Save up to 1,344 MWh annually
– up to $195k in energy savings per year!
See “Power 570 power and efficiency claims” and “Power 570 consolidation
claims*” charts in backup for full substantiation details.
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Consolidate up to 39 non-virtualized Sun SPARC
Enterprise M5000 servers into one IBM Power 595 server
39 Sun SPARC Enterprise
M5000 Servers*
One IBM Power™ 595 server*
• Reduce maximum energy
use by up to 84%
• Save up to 80% of the floor
space
 624 total cores @ 2.4 GHz
 Using an average of 20%maximum
capacity
 182,676 VA Maximum Power
requirement**
 64 total cores @ 5.0 GHz
 Using an average of 60% of
maximum capacity
 27,700 Maximum WATTS**
See page “notes on 39 to 1” for detail
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Save up to $840,000 and 83% of the energy use!
By consolidating on the Power 560 Express instead of the Sun M5000
-- Use 1/5 the rack space
Coming From:
 2 Racks: 13 V490 servers
 Maximum energy requirement of
22,750 WATTs
 List Price of $140,955
 Maximum energy requirement of
2,400 WATTs
 8U - One Power 560 Express
server
M5000 supports no more than 4
dynamic domains per system and
would require Four M5000 servers
to consolidate 13 V490s
 List price of $981,360
 Maximum energy requirement of
14,952 WATTs
 1 rack of 4 M5000 servers
See Power 560 versus M5000 consolidation
substantiation in backup for substantiation detail.
If Solaris Containers could be used:
 Two M5000 servers required: List price
of $490,680 and 7,296 Watts
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Energen Corporation reduces costs with migration from Sun to
IBM Power Systems
Client requirements
 Improve system performance and support for the company’s
SAP ERP (enterprise resource planning) application by
consolidating its sprawling 20-unit Sun server environment
 Reduce the total cost of ownership by cutting its licensing
costs for the Oracle databases, which support the
company’s SAP system
Solution
 Migrated its SAP ERP system and Oracle databases onto
two IBM Power servers [570s]
 Engaged IBM Business Partner Mainline Information
Systems to demonstrate how leveraging virtualization
technology could cut Oracle licensing costs
Benefits
 Reduces Oracle licensing costs by 40 percent, contributing
to US$500,000 in annual savings
 Provides a more efficient, available infrastructure that
combines lower capital and operational costs with better
performance and flexibility
“We certainly made a saving
on hardware costs, but the
reduction in Oracle licensing
costs was the main contributor
to the total US$500,000
annual savings we achieved
by migrating to IBM for our
SAP software environment.”
— Ron Payne,
Director of
Infrastructure Services
 Consumes significantly less floor space and power
31
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
SAP Application Servers are exploding as environments grow in complexity
DEV
Multiple Servers for each
SAP System Landscape
are required by SAP
TEST
QA
SAP System
1
2001
1 landscape
59 batch jobs
400 users
32
2
landscapes
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users
Multiple system
landscapes per SAP
functional solution
Multiple operational stages per System
3
…
2003
2
2
124
850
PROD
2005
5
4
3
198
1400
landscapes
parallel rollouts
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users
2006/7
9
6
8
310
2800
landscapes
parallel rollouts
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users
2008+
14
9
8
412
3100
landscapes
parallel rollouts
upgrades/yr
batch jobs
users
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Osram Sylvania consolidates SAP environment
from Alpha & x86 to Power
Business challenge:
Replace 50 legacy HP Alpha and Windows servers running missioncritical SAP applications with a flexible, highly reliable system that would
remain viable for more than five years and offer lower operational costs.
Solution:
Lowered operational costs and gained infrastructure flexibility when they
teamed with IBM and SAP to migrate their SAP ERP applications to the
IBM Power Systems platform
•SAP ERP 6.0
•SAP NetWeaver® Business Information Warehouse 3.1
•IBM Power Systems models 570, 550
•IBM AIX® operating system
•PowerHA for AIX
•Oracle DB
•IBM Global Business Services
“We were convinced that
IBM offered the best
support for the transition,
the best technology for
operations, and the best
strategy for long-term
development.”
Benefits:
•Batch times reduced by a factor of five
•User response times cut in half
•Service to the business dramatically improved
•Fewer servers means lower administration, maintenance, energy,
cooling and license costs
33
Jeffrey Ruck
Director of IT Infrastructure Services
OSRAM SYLVANIA
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Internet Retail Innovation Supported
by Managed Infrastructure Growth
Business challenge:
Move to a platform that would support Novell SUSE
Linux applications and allow them to quickly scale up
and stay one step ahead of the growing customer
base
Benefits:
 In same POWER™-based architecture footprint
since 2005, scaling up to meet demand that has
taken them to a projected US$1 billion in gross
merchandise sales during 2008.
 Plans to use Live Partition Mobility on new POWER6
processor architecture for new application
development and testing
http://www.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/ARBN-7JZLCT?OpenDocument&Site=corp&cty=en_us
34
“Nothing performs like
IBM Power as our
database server. Best of all,
our infrastructure remains
simple – even as we add
more processing capacity
to meet growth.”
Kris Ongbongan,
Systems Manager,
Zappos.com
Power = Openness +
Scalability
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
3
SPARC, PA-RISC, Itanium and x86 users
are moving to Power
 Thousands are moving to Power
1. Migration expertise
2. Power Rewards to offset migration
cost
3. Proven dependable roadmap
4. Proven utilization for maximum
consolidation
5. The best choice for UNIX users
Clients trust the migration experience of IBM and
the proven capability of Power Systems to handle their toughest workloads.
35
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
IBM Power Systems are the right choice.
1
2
3
36
IBM is an expert in scale-up and scalewithin computing.
IBM virtualization is years ahead
of any x86 or UNIX alternative.
UNIX clients trust IBM migration
expertise and Power roadmaps.
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance
 Sources for the biggest leap falls short
– Comparison to Xeon 5500 and Xeon 7400 for integer throughput, floating point throughput and DB transactions based
on SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate2006, and TPC-C benchmark results shown on chart Power to Xeon
substantiation. Comparison to Xeon 7500 based on Intel projections of Xeon 7500 to Xeon 7400. Note: This is not
intended to be a projection of the benchmark results. Comparisons to Itanium based on best results of any HP
Integrity system from “Compare UNIX Systems, Performance” at http://www03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. All results are current as of August 3, 2009.
 Sources for unmatched scalability
– Comparison to Xeon 5500 and Xeon 7400 for integer throughput, floating point throughput and DB transactions based
on SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate2006, and TPC-C benchmark results shown on chart Power to Xeon
substantiation. Comparison to Xeon 7500 based on Intel projections of Xeon 7500 to Xeon 7400. Note: This is not
intended to be a projection of the benchmark results. Comparisons to Itanium based on HP Integrity Superdome
results from “Compare UNIX Systems, Performance” at http://www03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. IBM results were for the IBM Power 595. All
results are current as of August 3, 2009.
 Sources for Scalability is about systems
– Source: HP QuickSpecs available at www.hp.com, Dell Datasheets and Dell™ PowerEdge™ Servers
– PRESS KIT - Intel® Xeon® Processor 5500 Series available at www.intel.com and the POWER6 TechEx
presentation. All data is current as of June 29, 2009.
 Sources for efficient linear scalability based on SAP SD 2-tier benchmark using SAP ERP release 6.0 (without the Unicode
extensions). Benchmark detail and results are shown at “Compare UNIX Systems, Performance” at http://www03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. All results are current as of August 3, 2009
37
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Power to Xeon Substantiation
Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of May 26, 2009. The results are the
best results for the systems compared.
SPEC® and the benchmark names SPECrate®, SPECint®, and SPECjbb® are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. For the latest SPEC
benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org
Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of May 26, 2009. The results are the
best results for the systems compared.
For the latest TPC-C benchmark results, visit http://www.tpc.org
38
© 2009 IBM Corporation
Power 570 power and efficiency claims
IBM Power Systems
 Comparisons between the IBM Power 570, HP Integrity Superdome, HP Integrity
rx8640, Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000, Sun Fire E6900 and Sun Fire V890.
– All systems were compared based on maximum processor configurations unless recommended wattage was
available for other configurations. Maximum configurations were used because that is the data point for which power
requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have different performance per watt metrics.
– Performance/watt is calculated by dividing the performance metric by the recommended maximum power usage for
site planning. Actual power used by the systems will be less than this value for all of the systems.
– This information for the Power 570 is in "Model 9117-MMA server specifications" available at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/systems/scope/hw/topic/iphdx/sa76-0091.pdf. The power requirement for the
Power 570 is 5600 watts.
– The information for the HP Integrity Superdome is in “QuickSpecs HP Integrity Superdome Servers 16-processor, 32processor, and 64-processor Systems” available at
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/Division/Division.html#11715. The power requirement for the 64
core Superdome is 12,196 watts.
– The information for the rx8640 is in "QuickSpecs HP Integrity rx8640 Server" available at
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12471_div/12471_div.HTM. HP defines multiple maximum power
ratings. This calculation uses the Marked Electrical for server which is consistent with the maximum selected for the
other servers. The power requirement for the rx8640 is 5400 watts.
– The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 Server Site
Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-4203-12/21ch3p.html. The power requirement for the
M8000 is 10,500 watts.
– The information for the Sun Fire E6900 Server is in the “Sun Fire E6900/E4900 Systems Site Planning Guide”
available at http://docs.sun.com/source/817-4117-14/environment.html. The power requirement for the E6900 is
9,410 watts.
– The information for the Sun Fire V890 Server is in the “Sun Fire™ V490/V890 Servers with UltraSPARC IV+
2100MHz CPU/Memory Modules Supplement ” available at http://dlc.sun.com/pdf//820-0714-10/820-0714-10.pdf.
The power requirement for the V890 is 4,843 watts.
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
Power 570 consolidation claims
* The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 5.67X
was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPEC® results source: www.spec.org . Power 570 (32-core, 16
chips, 2 cores per chip, 4.2 GHz) SPECjbb2005 1,390,087 bops, 86,880 bops/JVM as of 10/7/2008; Sun Fire V890
(16-core, 8 chips, 2 cores per chip) 2.1 GHz, SPECjbb2005 244,846 bops, 30,606 bops/JVM as of 9/25/2008. A
virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by
Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. A factor of 2X was
used to represent the ability to install two 32-core Power 570 systems in a single rack. Power consumption figures of
5600 W for the IBM Power 570 and 4843 W for the Sun Fire V890 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM
and Sun Microsystems, respectively. Air conditioning power requirement estimated at 50% of system power
requirement. Energy cost of $.0971 per kWh is based on 2008 YTD US Average Retail price to commercial customers
per US DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html as of 9/25/2008. The reduction in floor
space, power, cooling and software costs depends on the specific customer, environment, application requirements,
and the consolidation potential. Actual numbers of virtualized systems supported will depend on workload levels for
each replaced system.
** The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 1.7 was
applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPEC® results source: www.spec.org . Power 570 (32-core, 16 chips, 2
cores per chip, 4.2 GHz) SPECjbb2005 1,390,087 bops, 86,880 bops/JVM as of 10/7/2008; Sun SPARC Enterprise
M8000 (64-core, 16 chips, 4 cores per chip) 2.52 GHz, SPECjbb2005 817,158 bops, 51,072 bops/JVM as of 9/25/2008.
A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted
by Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. A factor of 2X was
used to represent the ability to install two 32-core Power 570 systems in a single rack. Power consumption figures of
5600 W for the IBM Power 570 and 10,500 W for the Sun M8000 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM
and Sun Microsystems, respectively. Air conditioning power requirement estimated at 50% of system power
requirement. Energy cost of $.0971 per kWh is based on 2008 YTD US Average Retail price to commercial customers
per US DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html as of 9/25/2008. The reduction in floor
space, power, cooling and software costs depends on the specific customer, environment, application requirements,
and the consolidation potential. Actual numbers of virtualized systems supported will depend on workload levels for
each replaced system.
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
notes on 39 for 1
*
The number of Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers that a single IBM Power™ 595 server could replace was calculated based on
SPECint_rate2006 results. The peak result for the M5000 is for a 2.4GHz system with 16 processors (chips) and 2 cores per chip. It has
a result of 158. The M5000 result can be found at www.spec.org. It is current as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 server result is
for a 5.0GHz system with 32 processor (chips) and 2 cores per chip. That result was submitted on April 8, 2008. It will also be posted on
www.spec.org. It has a peak result of 2,080 users. Estimating cumulative capacity as the number of servers times the throughput result
of a single server, the cumulative capacity of the 13 Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers is 13 times 158 users or 2,054. The capacity
of the single Power 595 server is greater than the cumulative capacity of the 13 M5000 servers.
A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by Alinean
available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. That is; the utilization rate for the non-virtualized
capacity of the M5000 server is estimated to be 20% and the utilization rate for the virtualized capacity of the Power 595 is estimated to
be 60%. The used M5000 capacity is therefore estimated as 39*158 * 20% = 1,232.4. The Power 595 server used capacity is estimated
as 2,080* 60% =1,248. Therefore the capacity of the Power 595 server at 60% is > than the cumulative capacity of the 39 M5000
servers at 20% utilization .
SPEC® and the benchmark names SPECrate®, SPECint®, and SPECjbb® are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance
Evaluation Corporation. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org
** Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 server Maximum AC power consumption of 4,684 VA was sourced from Sun SPARC Enterprise
M4000/M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide available at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-2205-10/Chap2_environ.html as of March 25,
2008. The IBM Power 595 server maximum power requirement is 27,700 VA.
The savings from using the Power 595 were calculated by multiplying the M5000 maximum by 39 for a total of 182,676VA. The Power
595 server maximum requirement of 27,700 VA is 15.16% of the 182,676.
*** The Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 is a rack system. The calculation of floor space here was based on using .1 of Sun Rack 1000-42 for
each M5000. The dimensions of the Sun Rack 1000-42 are 23.5” wide x 39.4” deep. They were sourced for the Sun Rack 1000-42 Tech
Specs available at http://www.sun.com/servers/rack/1000-42/specs.xml#anchor1 as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 is 30.5” wide
x 58.5” deep for a system with up to 3 I/O drawers.
The savings from using the Power 595 were calculated by multiplying the M5000 floor space by 39 for a total of 62.69 square feet. The
© 2009 IBM Corporation
square footage for the Power 595 is 12.39 square feet which is 19.76% of 62.69.
IBM Power Systems
Power 560 Performance and Efficiency Substantiation
Substantiation:
Notes:
1. Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of September 12, 2008. The SPECint_rate2006 results can be found at www.spec.org. The Power 560 Express final
publication will be Submitted on October, 7 2008. All systems were compared based on maximum processor configuration because that is the data point for which power
requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have better performance per WATT metrics.
2. SPEC® and the benchmark names SPECrate®, SPECint®, and SPECjbb® are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark
results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of October 6, 2008. The comparison presented above is based on the best performing 8-chip servers currently
shipping by IBM, Sun, and HP respectively. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org.
3. SPECint_rate2006 Peak/core results are:
IBM Power 560 Express with 8 chips and 16 cores and two threads per core with a projected result of 363.
Sun Microsystems Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 with 8 chips, 32 cores and 2 threads per core with a result of 264.
HP Integrity rx7640 with 8 chips and 16 cores and 2 threads per core with a result of 201
4. Performance per Watt is calculated by dividing the performance by the maximum system power.
5. Space for the Power 560 is 8 rack units. The Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 is 10 rack units. This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications"
available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC
Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. HP integrity rx7640 is 10 rack units and specifications are available at
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12470_div/12470_div.PDF
6, Performance
per watt is calculated by dividing the performance in the table above by the recommended maximum power for site planning. Actual power used by the systems will be
•Source:
http://www.spec.org/
•Power 560
results
be submitted
on Octoberfor
7,the
2008
less Express
than thisPOWER6
value for all
of thewill
systems.
This information
Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The power for the 560 is 2,400 WATTs. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun
SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. The power requirement for the M5000 is 3,738 WATTS. HP
© 2009 IBM Corporation
integrity rx7640 is 2128 watts and specifications are available at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12470_div/12470_div.PDF
42
PRELIMINARY Power 560 BENCHMARK RESULTS
IBM Power Systems
Power 560 Consolidation Substantiation
Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of October 6, 2008. The SPECint_rate2006 results can be found at www.spec.org. The Power 560 Express final publication will be
Submitted on October, 7 2008. All systems were compared based on maximum processor configuration because that is the data point for which power requirements are defined. Other
configurations of these systems could have better performance per WATT metrics.
SPEC® and the benchmark names SPECrate®, SPECint®, and SPECjbb® are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results
stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of October 7, 2008. The comparison presented above is based on a consolidation of a legacy 8-core Sun UltraSPARC IV
servers into a 16 core IBM Power 560. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org.
SPECintRate_2006 Peak/core results are:
POWER6: IBM Power 560 Express with 8 chips, and 16 cores @ 3.6 GHz and 2 threads per core with a projected result of 363.
SPARC: Sun V490 with 4 chips, 8 cores @ 2.1GHz and 1 thread per core with a result of 78.
*The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors:
A performance factor of 4.6X was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPECint_rate2006. Power 560 (16-core, 8 chips, 2 cores per chip, 3.6 GHz) 363, submitted on 10/07/2008;
Sun Fire V490 (8-core, 4 chips, 2 cores per chip) 2.1 GHz, SPECint_rate2006 of 78. The performance factor is simply the SPECint_rate2006 result of the Power 560 Express divided by
the result of the competitive Sun V490 server.
A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilization assumptions derived from an Alinean white paper on server consolidation. The tool assumes 19%
utilization of existing servers and 60% utilization of new servers. Source - www.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf.
Calculation Summary: the 560 to the Sun V490 performance ratio is 4.6 Multiply by 3 for the virtualization factor. Hence, 4.6 * 3 = 13.9 servers rounded to 13 V490 server can be consolidated
into 1 560 server.
The Sun V490 is 5U in height and 8 can fit into a 42U rack. The 560 is 8U in height and 5 560 systems can fit in a 42U rack.
One 560 system is 16 cores per system. A Sun V490 has 8 cores per system. 13 systems multiplied by 8 cores is 104 cores. 92% more cores.
Power consumption figures of 2400W for the IBM Power 560 and 1750W for the Sun Fire V490 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively.
This information for the 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. Sun Fire V490 Maximum AC
power consumption of 1750 WATTs was sourced from Sun Fire™ V490/V890 Servers with UltraSPARC IV+, 2100MHz CPU/Memory Modules Supplement available at
http://dlc.sun.com/pdf/820-0714-10/820-0714-10.pdf as of September, 2008.
43
© 2009 IBM Corporation
PRELIMINARY p550 BENCHMARK RESULTS
IBM Power Systems
Power 560 versus M5000 Consolidation Substantiation
Power 560 Express Pricing: $140,955
Power 560 Express Server, Includes 16 Core 3.6 GHz POWER6 Processors 64GB System Memory, 4 x 146 GB SAS Disk Drives, 1 DVD-ROM, 2
Gb Ethernet Ports, and 4 Power Supplies (220 V with N+N Redundancy)
Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 pricing: $181,340 + $64,000 (64GB of memory) = $245,340 times 4 servers = $981,360
Sun Pricing: http://shop.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewConfigurationsList;pgid=tyL4UHemJpNSR08nlpFb_str0000crh3TBti;sid=anhg_kXDZHdg_Q0QzxYo-6pe3_pCFlSyC9jXC_XKwbj_gYJOHk=?ProxyProductRefID=DUMMY3--HID-240460404@Sun_NorthAmericaSun_Store_US&CatalogCategoryID=hudIBe.dZb4AAAEUWEg5G_c2&ShowAllProducts=false
Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server, Includes 8 Quad-Core 2.4 GHz SPARC64 VII Processors, 4 CPU Board with 2 CPUs each 5 MB On Chip L2
Cache, and 64 GB System Memory (4 Memory Modules with 8 x 2 GB DDR2 DIMMs), 4 x 146 GB SAS Disk Drives, 1 DVD-ROM, 4 Gb
Ethernet Ports, 2 I/O Trays with 4 PCI-e and 1 PCI-X Slots, 4 Power Supplies (110 V or 220 V with N+N Redundancy), RoHS-5 Compliant
Quantity 4 SELX2B1Z $ 16,000.00
Sun SPARC Enterprise Server Memory Module, 8 x 2 GB DIMMs, 16 GB total memory, for SPARC Enterprise M4000 and M5000 servers, RoHS-5
Compliant
Power Consumption: This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The power for the 560 is 2,400 WATTs. The information for the Sun SPARC
Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. The power requirement for the M5000 is 3,738 WATTS. Actual power used by the systems will
be less than this value for all of the systems. Four M5000 servers times 3,738 watts equals 14,952. 83% more power than one Power 560 at
2,400 Watts.
20% of Sun V490 SPECint_rate2006 of 78 is 15.6. 60% utilization of the SPARC enterprise M5000 using SPECintrate_2006 is 158.4. Hence, the
M5000 using Solaris containers can support 10 Sun Fire V490 servers. It would require two M5000 servers to consolidate 13 V490s using
Solaris containers.
44
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
# Cores
GHz
IBM
System
POWER Result
Second Place
Result
POWER
Faster By
TPC-C 64-core
64
5
595
6,085,166
2,382,032
155%
Fujitsu Primequest
TPC-C 32-core
32
1.90
p5-595
1,601,784
1,354,086
18.2%
Fujitsu P’Quest
TPC-C 16-core
16
4.7
570
1,616,162
579,814
178.7%
HP DL585
Benchmarks
Second Place System (non-IBM)
TPC-C 4-core
4
4.7
570
404,462
230,569
75.4%
HP rx6600
SAP SD 3-tier Overall
32
1.90
p5-595
168,300
100,000
68.3%
HP Superdome 64-core
SAP SD 2-tier 16-core
16
4.7
570
8,000
4170
91.8%
Sun T5240
SAP SD 2-tier 4-core
4
4.7
570
2,035
1,218
67.1%
HP BL480c
SAP SD 2-tier 2-core
2
2.10
p5-505
680
597
13.9%
HP ProLiant ML370 3.6 GHz
Oracle Apps Online 11.5.9
8
1.90
p5-570
15,004
DNP
Oracle Apps. Std. Batch 11.5.9
8
1.90
p5-570
2,744,000
2,664,000
3.0%
Fujitsu PrimePower 850 (16-core)
SPECint_rate2000 4-core
4
2.10
p5-550
90.0
123
-26.8%
Dell PowerEdge
SPECfp_rate2000 4-core
4
2.10
p5-550
149
121
23.1%
Sun Ultra 40
SPECint_rate2000 8-core
8
2.20
p5-575
200
200
0%
SPECfp_rate2000 8-core
8
2.20
p5-575
382
214
78.5%
SPECint_rate2000 16-core
16
1.90
p5-575
314
283
11%
SPECfp_rate2000 16-core
16
1.90
p5-575
571
373
53.1%
Bull NovaScale
SPECint_rate2000 32-core
32
1.65
p5-590
529
537
-1.5%
Fujitsu PrimePower 1500
SPECfp_rate2000 32-core
32
1.65
p5-590
870
766
13.6%
Fujitsu Primequest 480
SPECint_rate2000 64-core
64
2.30
p5-595
1,513
1108
36.6%
HP Superdome (1.6 GHz)
SPECfp_rate2000 64-core
64
1.90
p5-595
2,406
1,257
91.4%
SGI Altix 3000
SPECfp2006
1
5
595
24.9
16.9
47.3%
HP rx6600
SPECint_rate2006 8-core
8
5
550
263
260
1.1%
Sun X2270
SPECfp_rate2006 8-core
8
5
550
222
200
11%
Fujitsu RX300
SPECsfs_R1.v3 SMP
8
2.20
p5-570
169,786
66,235
156.3%
HP AlphaServer GS1280
SPECjbb2005 16-core
16
5
570
867,989
758,325
14.4%
Tyan TX46
45
Dell PowerEdge/Fujitsu Primergy
Sun X4600
Fujitsu PrimePower
POWER vs.
Best
Competitive
Result
Comparing the best
available results vs.
POWER
64-core (32/64/128) IBM Power 595 TPC-C result of 6,085,166 tpmC,
$2.81/tpmC, avail. 12/10/08
64-core (32/64/128) Fujitsu Primequest TPC-C result of 2,382,032 tpmC,
$3.76/tpmC, avail. 12/04/08
32-core IBM p5-595 TPC-C result of 1,601,784 tpmC, $5.05/tpmC, avail.
04/20/05
32-core (16/32/64) Fujitsu P’Quest TPC-C result of 1,354,086 tpmC,
$3.25/tpmC, avail. 11/22/08
16-core (8/16/32) IBM Power 570 TPC-C result of 1,616,162 tpmC,
$3.54/tpmC, avail. 11/21/07
16-core (4/16/16) HP DL585 TPC-C result of 579,814 tpmC, $.96/tpmC, avail.
11/17/08
4-core (2/4/8) IBM Power 570 TPC-C result of 404,462 tpmC, $3.50/tpmC,
avail. 11/26/07
4-core (2/4/8) HP rx6600 TPC-C result of 230,569 tpmC, $2.63/tpmC, avail.
12/01/06
Sources:
http://www.spec.org
http://www.tpc.org
http://www.sap.com/benchmark/
http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/PDSreports.html
All results are as of 05/01/09
TPC-C results with processor chip/core/thread.
SPEComp results: IBM cores = 2x chip, threads = 4x chip.
SAP certification numbers can be found in SAP section of charts.
Linpack results are SMP only.
© 2009 IBM Corporation
IBM Power Systems
# Cores
GHz
IBM
System
POWER Result
Second Place
Result
POWER
Faster By
Lotus NotesBench R6Mail
16
1.65
i5-595
175,000
120,000
45.8%
8 2-way HP ProLiant BL20p
Lotus NotesBench D7 R6iNotes
16
1.8
p5-560Q
55,000
43,000
27.9%
Sun T5120
SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 2-core
2
3.8
JS12
12,885
7,612
69.2%
Sun Fire X4200
SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 4-core
4
4.2
520
20,443
13,817
47.9%
Sun V40z
SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 8-core
8
4.2
550
40,773
23,224
75.5%
Sun Fire X8420
SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 16-core
16
4.7
570
94,350
25,932
263%
HP AlphaServer GS1280
SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) Overall
64
5
595
242,116
104,714
88.8%
Sun/Fujitsu M8000
SPEC OMPL2001 base (64-core)
64
2.30
p5-595
1,005,583
532,576
98.1%
Sun/Fujitsu M8000
LINPACK HPC 2-core
2
1.90
p5-520
14.31
12.05
18.8%
HP rx1620 (1.6 GHz)
LINPACK HPC 4-core
4
4.7
520
65
21.71
199.4%
HP rx5670
LINPACK HPC 8-core
8
5
550
137.6
48.55
183.4%
HP rx6600
LINPACK HPC 16-core
16
5
570
277.7
88.8
212.7%
HP rx8620
LINPACK HPC 32-core
32
4.7
575
500
268.6
86.1%
Fujitsu/Sun M9000
LINPACK HPC 64-core
64
5
595
1050
342
207%
HP Superdome
Benchmarks
Second Place System (non-IBM)
POWER vs.
Best
Competitive
Result
Comparing the best
available results vs.
POWER
Sources:
http://www.spec.org
http://www.tpc.org
http://www.sap.com/benchmark/
http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/PDSreports.html
All results are as of 05/01/09
TPC-C results with processor chip/core/thread.
SPEComp results: IBM cores = 2x chip, threads = 4x chip.
SAP certification numbers can be found in SAP section of charts.
Linpack results are SMP only.
46
© 2009 IBM Corporation