| Author |
Message
|
| tc900 |
 Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: Platform and performance for WMB7 |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Posts: 2
|
Hi,
we are currently using WMB6 over Windows 2003 Server. We want to move to WMB6 on 64bit platform. Is there any important reason to move to other platform such Linux, than stay over Windows 2008 64bit ?
Regards
T. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
You will get about twelve percent better performance from Linux RHEL5.5 than you will from Windows, all other things being equal, and looking only at Transactions Per Second capability.
If you are considering this, why are you stuck on WMB 6.1? Version 8 will be out next year, and soon thereafter, v6.x will sunset. If you were going to make this change now, why not move to v7?
BTW, you will get 3x performance increase moving to AIX Power7 architecture vs. Windows. Read that 300 percent better performance.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| elvis_gn |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 1905
Location: Dubai
|
Hi all,
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
You will get about twelve percent better performance from Linux RHEL5.5 than you will from Windows, all other things being equal, and looking only at Transactions Per Second capability.
BTW, you will get 3x performance increase moving to AIX Power7 architecture vs. Windows. Read that 300 percent better performance. |
Do you have something to prove this or just by experience ?
tc900: Talk to your IBM Sales rep to get a sizing done for the different platforms...you'll most probably see a small saving if you move to AIX (usually the case, but can go vice versa based on your hardware choice)...also a Windows box is safe to be utilized up to say 60-70% CPU utilization, AIX you *can* go up to 80-90% too, basically more value for your buck.
Regards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| BTW, you will get 3x performance increase moving to AIX Power7 architecture vs. Windows. Read that 300 percent better performance. |
Power7! 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| Version 8 will be out next year |
Link please? Or is this opinion?
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| and soon thereafter, v6.x will sunset. |
Not "soon thereafter". In accordance with the documented product lifecycle.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| elvis_gn wrote: |
| Do you have something to prove this or just by experience ? |
As has been said many, many times don't quote something as a fact ("you will get") unless you have something to refer to which includes all the factors involved in the speed increase.
There's a world of difference between the statements "You'll get a 300% performance increase switching from Windows to Power7" and "I got a 300% performance increase when I switched from Windows to Power7".
And I thought you'd changed jobs recently from the nerdvana of Power7 & automated builds to a new site where mqsicreatebar didn't work as you wanted?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| elvis_gn wrote: |
Hi all,
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
You will get about twelve percent better performance from Linux RHEL5.5 than you will from Windows, all other things being equal, and looking only at Transactions Per Second capability.
BTW, you will get 3x performance increase moving to AIX Power7 architecture vs. Windows. Read that 300 percent better performance. |
Do you have something to prove this or just by experience ? |
I've done my own testing with my standard use cases, and base my opinion on these results. Your mileage may vary because different use cases have different outcomes.
Here are some docs that could be used to infer some relativity.
ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/integration/support/supportpacs/individual/ipl6.pdf
ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/integration/support/supportpacs/individual/ipl5.pdf
ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/integration/support/supportpacs/individual/ip75.pdf
Based on my testing, AIX Power7 is the best choice, highest throughput, lowest latency. HP-UX comes next, Linux, Windows, then z/OS. z/OS has an OS limitation that inhibits good performance, and usually results in 70 percent less thoughput than Power7. This is because the CPU time used to process a single message is 30 percent slower than other platforms.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| z/OS has an OS limitation that inhibits good performance, and usually results in 70 percent less thoughput than Power7. This is because the CPU time used to process a single message is 30 percent slower than other platforms. |
Further details please. Typically z/OS is used / marketed as the workhorse of the large site. I've not experienced the limitation you speak of (and hence am interested to know of it) and am very interested to see z/OS ranked at the bottom of the pile below Windows!
To be clear, I've met some large Unix boxes that could give a small sysplex a run of the money, and could have been argued to cost less money. Nor am I disputing that Power7 is a good and efficient version of AIX. I'm focusing in this on the limitation in z/OS and why it ranks below Windows.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| elvis_gn wrote: |
| Do you have something to prove this or just by experience ? |
As has been said many, many times don't quote something as a fact ("you will get") unless you have something to refer to which includes all the factors involved in the speed increase.
There's a world of difference between the statements "You'll get a 300% performance increase switching from Windows to Power7" and "I got a 300% performance increase when I switched from Windows to Power7".
And I thought you'd changed jobs recently from the nerdvana of Power7 & automated builds to a new site where mqsicreatebar didn't work as you wanted? |
The trees are not as tall in this forest, just need some more time to cultivate the right atmosphere. Growth is a good thing.
mqsicreatebar works, just not when unrelated projects in the workspace have red-X's. A design improvement would be to scope the fail condition for mqsicreatebar to just those projects being built and not all projects in the workspace.
Power7 795 model has 132 cores running at 4.25 Ghz. If you don't get more performance from that architecture, I would ask for my money back. A single 4 GHz Power7 core will yield about 15 to 20 per cent more performance than a 5 GHz Power6 core, and when you factor in the quadrupling of cores moving from the Power 595 to the Power 795 plus this increase in performance (largely enabled through the 32 MB of embedded DRAM L3 cache memory on the Power7 chip).
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| z/OS has an OS limitation that inhibits good performance, and usually results in 70 percent less thoughput than Power7. This is because the CPU time used to process a single message is 30 percent slower than other platforms. |
Further details please. Typically z/OS is used / marketed as the workhorse of the large site. I've not experienced the limitation you speak of (and hence am interested to know of it) and am very interested to see z/OS ranked at the bottom of the pile below Windows!
To be clear, I've met some large Unix boxes that could give a small sysplex a run of the money, and could have been argued to cost less money. Nor am I disputing that Power7 is a good and efficient version of AIX. I'm focusing in this on the limitation in z/OS and why it ranks below Windows. |
To actually see this pattern, you should develop a use case and measure the CPU ms per message on each platform. In my testing, I have noticed that z/OS CPU milliseconds per message is significantly greater for certain use cases. This is especially evident when message sizes are less than 2,000 bytes, as the distributed platforms naturally process smaller message sizes with more ease.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tc900 |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Posts: 2
|
hey
Ok, but what about only Linux or Windows as a platform. Are there any pitfalls ? Our data center is not ready for z/OS.
TC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| Power7 795 model has 132 cores running at 4.25 Ghz. If you don't get more performance from that architecture, I would ask for my money back. A single 4 GHz Power7 core will yield about 15 to 20 per cent more performance than a 5 GHz Power6 core, and when you factor in the quadrupling of cores moving from the Power 595 to the Power 795 plus this increase in performance (largely enabled through the 32 MB of embedded DRAM L3 cache memory on the Power7 chip). |
So Power7 is faster than Power6. I think we can agree there.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| . In my testing, I have noticed that z/OS CPU milliseconds per message is significantly greater for certain use cases. |
Off topic for this poor guy's thread I think, but worth a new thread. I'm interested in your use cases and still trying to get my head round this z/OS limitation and how z/OS is slower than Windows for equivalent use cases.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| tc900 wrote: |
| Ok, but what about only Linux or Windows as a platform. Are there any pitfalls ? |
Apologies for the thread hijack there. 
Given that you (like most of us except @lancelotlinc) are presented with a choice of platforms and lack the ability to say "we should scrap the lot & buy Power7", IMHO there's not a single killer reason to justify moving from 64-bit Windows to Linux.
IMHO there's a raft of smaller reasons to move off Windoze, concerning stability, configurability, ease of use, maintenance and it just being too Microsoft, but you'd be better advised to look through the performance repors than rely on my predjudice.
You also need to look in a wider context. Are you being asked about Linux because other developments / software is moving to Linux? Do you have or do you plan to develop Linux skills? Does Linux offer cost advanges over Windows that outweigh it's other specific disadvantages to you?
One important point that may have got buried in the off-topic stuff is the decision should be based on usage. Do you have tight SLAs, high volumes, low tolerance for downtime, etc? All of these need to feed into this kind of decision.
Pitfalls? All OS has pitfalls. All have stregnths and weaknesses. But sooner or later, you just have to scream & leap.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
Given a choice between the two, I would elect RHEL 5.5. Remember to follow exactly the step-by-step installation instructions in Chapter 6. If you don't you will have to start over.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
