NT vs. Linux Server Benchmark Comparisons

Various benchmarks comparing the web, file, and database server performance of NT and Linux have been performed recently. This page summarizes the results of some of those comparisons, and shows interesting graphs (if available) from each benchmark effort.

Windows 2003 vs. Linux File Server Benchmarks

IT Week, October 2003

See the updated article at itweek.co.uk, which says
"Samba 3 extends lead over Win 2003
By Roger Howorth [14-10-2003]
The latest Samba release shows Windows a clean pair of heels in file and print peformance

Tests by IT Week Labs indicate that the latest version of the open-source Samba file and print server software has widened the performance gap separating it from the commercial Windows alternative.

The latest benchmark results show an improvement over [Samba 2], which performed twice as fast as Windows 2000 Server when it was tested by IT Week Labs last year. Overall, it now performs 2.5 times faster than Windows Server 2003.

In terms of scalability, the gains of upgrading to Samba 3 are even more striking. Last year we found that Samba could handle four times as many clients as Windows 2000 before performance began to drop off. This year we would need to upgrade our test network in order to identify the point where Samba performance begins to fall in earnest.

The IT Week Labs tests used Ziff-Davis NetBench file server benchmark with 48 client systems. We selected a low-specification but otherwise modern server for our tests. We used an HP ProLiant BL10 eClass Server fitted with a 900MHz Pentium III chip, a single 40GB ATA hard disk and 512MB of RAM. We did not tune any of the software to improve performance.

Each NetBench client makes a constant stream of file requests to the server under test, whereas in real-world environments many users would remain idle for long periods. Consequently our test environment simulates the workload of some 500 client PCs in a typical production environment."

Here's the graph from the print version of the article (thanks to the ITWeek staff for posting a link at lwn.net):
This is so different from the May 2003 Veritest results, one hardly knows where to start. Perhaps it's enough to note that the ITWeek configuration corresponds to what really small businesses might do, whereas the Veritest test corresponds to what a large company might try for a central server if they were too lazy to install the latest Samba (rather unlikely...)

Veritest, May 2003

In May 2003, Microsoft hired Veritest to run the netbench file serving benchmark to compare the CIFS file serving performance of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition Release Candidate 2 against Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1. Veritest's Microsoft reports page links to the benchmark results in PDF format.

The server machine was an HP DL760 or DL380 equipped with 1, 2, 4, or 8 Pentium III Xeon CPUs, and a matching number of Intel PRO/1000 MF gigabit ethernet cards. (HP has a nice Linux support page for both the DL380 and DL760.) Each gigabit card was connected to a switch, which was connected via 100baseT to 15 or 30 client systems. Throughput was measured at 1, 8, 16, ... active clients, up to the number physically present. (See the graphs of throughput vs. # of clients on pages 10-11 of the report, or see Joe Barr's extracted graph of the same for 4 processors.) Here's a table describing the setup and results (figures only accurate to 20Mb/sec, as they had to be read off the imprecise graphs in the Veritest report):

Linux Windows
Server cpus interfaces clients/interface peak at Mb/s at peak Mb/s at full load peak at Mb/s at peak Mb/s at full load
DL380 2 4 30 350 700
DL760 1 2 30 16 244 210 24 453 350
DL760 2 4 30 16 385 320 32 632 560
DL760 4 4 30 24 462 410 48 901 710
DL760 8 8 15 32 657 590 80 1088 950
Veritest used the peak numbers to conclude that, at 8 processors, Windows was 1088Mb/s / 657Mb/s = 1.66 times faster than Linux. It would be equally fair to take the fully loaded results, and conclude that Windows was 950Mb/s / 590Mb/s = 1.61 times faster than Linux.

Veritest (aka Lionbridge) has a rather cozy relationship with Microsoft, so Microsoft's claim that the tests were done by a truly independent organization is somewhat misleading. Nevertheless, the benchmark does not appear manifestly unfair.

Issues that may have affected performance:

I'm looking forward to counter-benchmarks from the Linux community. (by OSDL, perhaps?)

Comments from the community:


NT vs. Linux Web Server Benchmark Comparisons

Until recently, these tests mostly used ZD Labs' WebBench, which measures how fast a server can send out static HTML pages from a 60 megabyte document tree, and all of the tests have been run on a local LAN, with no effort made to model the large number of simultaneous slow connections that one finds on most web servers accessed via the Internet. Also, all but one of these tests has used exclusively static web pages, whereas dynamically generated web pages are standard fare on big web sites.

Happily, the SPECweb99 is becoming more popular; it limits each client to 400kbits/sec, uses a mix of static and dynamic web fetches from a document tree too large to cache in memory, and scores web server by how many clients they can handle without any dropping below 80% of 400kbits/sec. This is a much more realistic test -- and harder to fudge, since you are only allowed to report results if you follow a fairly stringent set of test guidelines.

Another benchmark of interest is TPC-W. See tpc.org for more information. TPC-W models a range of typical e-commerce-oriented web sites, and will require a database (as one would expect from a benchmark by the TPC folks). It's more expensive to run, as you must hire a TPC-approved auditor to audit your benchmark results. No results yet for Linux.


Benchmark Results

Table of Recent SPECweb99 Results on Intel-based hardware

Date SPECweb99 CPU L2 RAM Doctree software org Details
04/2001 8001 4 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 32GB 26GB W2k + IIS5 + SWC3 Dell Details
11/2000 7500 4 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 32GB 22GB 2.4.? + Tux2.0 Dell Details
06/2001 3999 2 900MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 16GB 13GB 2.4.2 + Tux2.0 IBM Details
06/2001 3227 2 1.133GHz PIII 512KB 4GB 10GB 2.4.? + Tux2.0 IBM Details
06/2001 2799 1 900MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 8GB 8.8GB 2.4.2 + Tux2.0 IBM Details
03/2001 2499 2 1GHz PIII 256KB 4GB 8.1GB W2k + IIS5 + SWC3 HP Details
06/2001 1820 1 1.133GHz PIII 512KB 4GB 5.1GB 2.4.? + Tux2.0 IBM Details

ZD (Sm@rt Reseller), January 1999

Sm@rt Reseller's January 1999 article, "Linux Is The Web Server's Choice" said "Linux with Apache beats NT 4.0 with IIS, hands down." The companion article said unequivocally "The bottom line, according to our hands-on analysis, is that commercial Linux releases can do much more with far less than Windows NT Server can." ... "According to ZDLabs' results (see test charts), each of the commercial Linux releases ate NT's lunch."

Hardware: Single 100baseT + Single 266MHz CPU + 64MB RAM + 4GB IDE disk
Software: Linux 2.0.35 + Apache 1.31 vs. Windows NT Server 4.0 SP4 + IIS 4.0

Note that the number of requests per second in this test is quite low compared to other benchmarks below. This is partly because the 60 megabyte document tree used in this test didn't fit into main memory, so the server was swapping to disk -- a situation in which Linux seems to outperform NT, especially when testing out-of-the-box untuned configurations. Compare with the 128 megabyte RAM test PC Magazine did in September 1999, which also showed Linux beating NT under low RAM, untuned conditions.

Mindcraft, April 1999

In March 1999, Microsoft commissioned Mindcraft to carry out a comparison between NT and Linux. The comparison used ZD Labs' WebBench. The server was configured with four CPUs and four fast Ethernet cards, and for NT, each CPU was bound directly to one of the Ethernet cards. In this configuration, NT's WebBench score was 2 to 3 times higher than Linux's WebBench score. Also, Linux experienced a disasterous falloff in performance above a certain point:
http performance curve
Hardware: Quad 100baseT + Quad 400MHz Pentium II Xeon + 1MB L2 Cache + 1GB RAM
Software: Linux 2.2.2 + Apache 1.3.4 vs. NT 4.0 EE + Service pack 3

Note the much higher scores in this test than in the January tests by Sm@rt Reseller; this is due to the much faster CPUs, better tuning, and the 1 gigabyte of RAM (16 times as much as the earlier test), which allowed the 60MB document tree to fit many times over in RAM, probably reducing disk I/O to zero.
See also:

PC Week, 10 May 1999

On 10 May 1999, PC Week (Ziff-Davis) compared the http and smb serving performance of Linux 2.2.7, Solaris 2.7, NT 4.0, and Netware 5.0 on a quad 500MHz Pentium III server. The comparison also used ZD Labs' WebBench. ZD was careful during the web testing to avoid any disk I/O, and said that 2.2.7 gave much better performance than 2.2.5, that they did edit the Apache conf files, and that they used the top_fuel patch. The http results show performance for all four operating systems about equal and increasing linearly with number of clients initially; Linux/Apache flattened out at about 28 clients; NT/IIS flattened out at about 40 clients; and Solaris/SWS was still increasing nearly linearly at 60 clients.
http performance curve
Hardware: Quad full duplex 100baseT + Quad 500MHz Pentium 3 + 512KB? L2 Cache + 1GB RAM
Software: Linux 2.2.7 + Apache (unknown version) + top_fuel (Linux tuning info) vs. NT 4.0 Workstation (NT tuning info)

ZD Labs, 14-19 June 1999

ZD Labs hosted a repeat of Mindcraft's benchmark, and Red Hat sent Zach Brown and Doug Ledford to help out. Once again, the benchmark used was ZD Labs' WebBench. Here are links to coverage in the press: The results differ from the April test in two key ways: First, Linux now equals NT's performance in the region in which the load is too light to require multiple processors on the server. (In the April tests, Linux had lagged behind even under light load.) Second, above this region, Linux's performance remains constant rather than falling to zero as it did in April. My guess is that this is due mostly to fixes in the Linux kernel.

NT is still about 1.5 times as fast as Linux on single-processor systems under heavy load, and 2.2 times as fast on SMP systems under heavy load. (This gap between NT and Linux is much narrower than in April's tests, which showed NT being about 30 times as fast under really heavy load.)

performance curve
Hardware: Quad 100baseT + Quad 400 MHz Pentium II Xeon + 2MB L2 Cache + 1GB RAM
Software: Linux 2.2.6 + Apache 1.3.6 + top_fuel + mod_mmap_static (tuning info) vs. NT 4.0 EE + Service Pack 4 (Tuning info)

Here's a graph from Mindcraft's writeup showing all their results together:

Click for larger image
Phase 1 corresponds to their Second MS-hosted test using 2.2.6 (but run at ZD), Phase 2 is the same thing, but with better tuning, and Phase 3 is with the latest OS (2.2.10) and patches. Note the Phase 1 results don't show the same performance dropoff as did the MS-hosted tests. This probably means the Microsoft testbed somehow causes very poor Linux performance, possibly by tickling the TCP bug that was fixed in the 2.2.7 kernel.

In Phase 3, Linux showed 14% better performance than in the earlier phases, showing that tuning was not a major problem with the original tests.

It's clear that, in multi-CPU, multi-ethernet performance, Solaris really shines, NT does pretty well, and Linux 2.2.6 does poorly. In fact, during the tests, they tried an alternate high-performance Web server program for Linux, Zeus, and found that it had the same problems as Apache. This means the performance problems were probably mostly in the Linux kernel. Zach Brown profiled the kernel during the test, and saw that four Fast Ethernet cards on a quad SMP system exposes a bottleneck in Linux's interrupt processing; the kernel spent a lot of time in synchronize_bh(). Linux would probably perform much better on this test if a single Gigabit Ethernet card were substituted for the four Fast Ethernet cards.


c't Magazin, June 1999

c't Magazin ran very interesting benchmarks of Linux/Apache and NT/IIS on a quad Pentium 2 Xeon system. These tests used custom benchmark software written by c't (available for download). Like WebBench, this test used a small document tree (10,000 4KB files); unlike WebBench, these tests also used a second document tree (1,000,000 4KB files) that was too large to fit in main memory, which tests the disk subsystem and caching behavior of the operating system.
See also IT Director's summary of the c't tests.

Here's their graph of performance on a single-CPU system on small sets (10^4) and large sets (10^6) of files:

(They didn't seem to repeat the same graph on a multi-CPU or multi-ethernet system, darn it...)

Here's their graph of performance on 1 and 4 CPU systems with a single Ethernet card on extremely small sets of files (a single 4 kilobyte file!):

In all their single fast ethernet card tests on non-trivial document trees, Linux equalled or beat NT. When a second fast ethernet card was hooked up, though, NT beat Linux.


PC Magazine, September 1999

PC Magazine compared the http performance of up-to-date but untuned single-CPU, 128MB RAM servers (again with WebBench), and found that NT did a lot more disk accesses than Linux, which let Linux score about 50% better than NT. Here's their graph:
(They noted that "A savvy Windows NT administrator could make some simple tweaks to bring that OS's performance in line with a comparable Linux server," but since they wanted to show how the servers performed without special tweaking, they didn't report a graph of tuned results.)

Compare with the 64 megabyte RAM test Sm@rt Reseller did in January 1999, which also showed Linux beating NT under low RAM, untuned conditions.


IBM / SPECweb99, November 1999

IBM achieved a score of 404 SPECweb99 on a Netfinity 5000 with 2 x 600 MHz Pentium III 512 KB half-speed L2 Cache, 100 MHz bus, 2GB RAM, 40GB disk space, Red Hat Linux 6.1, the Zeus web server, and (although it's hard to imagine) three Gigabit Ethernet cards. The document tree was 1.4 gigabytes -- potentially small enough to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.

IBM / SPECweb99, December 1999

IBM achieved a score of 545 SPECweb99 on a Netfinity 5600 with a single 533 MHz Pentium IIIEB 256 KB fullspeed L2 Cache, 133 MHz bus, 1.5GB RAM, 36B disk space, Red Hat Linux 6.1, the Zeus web server, and a single Gigabit Ethernet card. The document tree was 1.8 gigabytes -- too large to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.

IBM / SPECweb99, February 2000

IBM achieved a score of 710 SPECweb99 on a Netfinity 5600 with a single 667 MHz Pentium IIIEB 256 KB fullspeed L2 Cache, 133 MHz bus, 2.0GB RAM, 45MB disk space, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, the IIS5.0 web server, and a single Gigabit Ethernet card. The document tree was 2.4 gigabytes -- too large to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.
This CPU's clock rate was 25% higher than the one used in the December test. If performace scales linearly with processor speed, then Red Hat Linux 6.1 would have scored about 680 on this hardware, or about 4% slower than Win2K+IIS.

PC Week, 17 December 1999

In PC Week Labs' 17 December 1999 tests with WebBench, Windows 2000 scored about 25% higher than NT 4.0:

Hardware: ?? 100baseT + Compaq 6400R 2 or 4 CPU 500 MHz Pentium III Xeon system + ?? L2 Cache + 2GB RAM


Dell / SPECweb99, June 2000

Dell achieved a score of 4200 SPECweb99 on a PowerEdge 6400/700 with four 700 MHz Pentium III 2MB L2 Cache, 133 MHz bus, 8.0GB RAM, 45MB disk space, Red Hat Linux 6.2 "Threaded Web Server Add-On" with the TUX web server, and four Gigabit Ethernet cards. The document tree was 13.6 gigabytes -- too large to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.
A few notes: the 4 processor test was done with a huge L2 cache (2 MB), whereas the 1 and 2 processor tests were done with the full-speed but small 256KB L2 cache. Even so, the scaling (1/2/4 CPU system scores were 1270/2200/4200 = 1.0/1.7/3.3) isn't bad.

TUX ("Threaded LinUX web server"), the server software used in this test, is a 2.4 kernel based kernel-mode http server meant to be an Apache addon. It was written mostly by Ingo Molnar; see his note on Slashdot and his replies to questions on Linux Today.

Ingo's September 1, 2000 announcement says an alpha version of TUX can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/tux, and explains how to join a mailing list for more info.

TUX has achieved quite an impressive SPECweb99 score, the highest ever recorded, I think. See the benchmark notes.

The big news is that although Win2000/IIS 5.0 on the same hardware turned in a good score of 732 with 1 processor, it did not scale well, scoring only 1600 with 4 processors (2.2 times faster than 1 CPU) -- even though the document tree for the Win2000 run was only 5.2 gigabytes, small enough to fit in RAM. Overview and details at SPEC.org.


Dell / SPECweb99, July 2000

Dell achieved a score of 6387 SPECweb99 on a PowerEdge 8450/700 with eight 700 MHz Pentium III 2MB L2 Cache, 32.0GB RAM, 45MB disk space, Red Hat Linux 6.2 "Threaded Web Server Add-On" with the TUX web server, and eight Gigabit Ethernet cards. The document tree was 21 gigabytes -- small enough to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.

Dell / SPECweb99, November 2000

Dell achieved a score of 7500 SPECweb99 with TUX 2.0 on Red Hat 6.2 Enterprise running on a PowerEdge 8450/700 with 32 GB RAM, powered by eight 700MHz Pentium III Xeon's (2MB L2 cache each), eight Alteon ACEnic 1000-SX gigabit Ethernet cards, and 5 9GB 10KRPM drives. The document tree was 22 GB -- small enough to fit into RAM.

Dell / SPECweb99, April 2001

Dell achieved a score of 8001 SPECweb99 with Microsoft's IIS 5.0 and SWC 3.0 on Windows 2000 Datacenter running on a PowerEdge 8450/700 with 32 GB RAM, powered by eight 700MHz Pentium III Xeon's (2MB L2 cache each), eight 3Com 3C985B-SX gigabit Ethernet cards, and 7 9GB 10KRPM drives plus one 18GB 15K RPM drive. The document tree was 26 GB -- barely small enough to fit into RAM.

Ziff-Davis/eWeek, June 2001

eWeek published two articles in June 2001: They seem like good technology stories, but as benchmark result articles, they were somewhat short on details. The print version seems to have more detail; in a segment titled "... details of benchmark tests: [putting] super-speedy Web server through all its paces was greatest challenge" (I'm working from a faxed page here, sorry). It explains that: The story has a graph of requests per second vs. client load for four server combinations. It shows linear scaling up to 20 clients for Apache alone, to 21 clients for IIS alone, to 45 for Tux with Apache, and to 50 for Tux alone. (And with four CPUs, Tux scaled nearly linearly past 80 clients, as noted above.) Can anyone send me a URL for this graph?

I would have expected them to also test Microsoft's SWC (Scalable Web Cache), which is a bit like Microsoft's answer to Tux; IIS 5.0 can't get good SPECweb99 scores without it.

(Note: eWeek is part of Ziff-Davis, but not really part of zdnet, which is now owned by cnet... see Tim Dyck's comment at LinuxToday. Hard to keep track of the players these days.)


IBM / SPECweb99, June 2001

IBM achieved a score of 3999 SPECweb99 on a IBM eServer xSeries 370 with a dual 900 MHz Pentium III Xeon, 2MB L2 cache, 16.0GB RAM, 90MB disk space, Red Hat Linux 7.0 with Threaded Web Server Addon, the Tux 2.0 web server, and four Gigabit Ethernet cards. The document tree was 12.9 gigabytes -- small enough to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.

IBM also achieved a score of 2700 SPECweb99 on a IBM eServer xSeries 370 with a single 900 MHz Pentium III Xeon, 2MB L2 cache, 8.0GB RAM, 90MB disk space, Red Hat Linux 7.0 with Threaded Web Server Addon, the Tux 2.0 web server, and three Gigabit Ethernet cards. The document tree was 8.8 gigabytes -- too large to fit into RAM.
Details at SPEC.org.



NT vs. Linux Database Server Benchmark Comparisons

The TPC family of benchmarks has the interesting feature that the price of the server and its software is part of the benchmark (showing that the target audience is managers, not geeks!); to compare an 8-CPU server against a 16-CPU server, compare not the raw score (queries per hour), but the cost per score unit (dollars per queries per hour).

TPC/C Benchmark Results

In September 2002, the first TPC/C benchmark results for a Linux database system were reported. It's been a long time coming because these tests are quite expensive to conduct, and vendors wanted to make darn sure Linux would perform well. It was worth the wait!

More recently, Intel has mentioned that it is working on a 32 processor TPC/C benchmark with Linux. No results yet.

Here are the top ten clustered TPC/C results by price/performance and by performance.

In this test, Linux beat Windows 2000 Advanced Server by a hair both in absolute performance and in price/performance. Looks like they're pretty closely matched. For those interested in what new features of Linux helped performance the most, see this note from HP on the linux-kernel mailing list. (HP emphasizes the test used an unmodified copy of Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1.)

TPC/H Benchmark Results

According to tpc.org, the TPC/H benchmark measures performance of a database in decision support environments where it's not known which queries will be executed. Pre-knowledge of the queries may not be used to optimize the DBMS system. Consequently, query execution times can be very long.

Results for four sizes of database are reported: 100GB, 300GB, 1TB, and 3TB. (GB = gigabyte = 10^9 bytes, TB = terrabyte = 10^12 bytes) Results from one database size should not be compared with results from a different size.


Unisys, Dec 2000 (100GB database size, 8 CPU SMP, Windows 2000)

Score: 1669 QphH (Queries per Hour, tpc/H)
$/Score: 169 US dollars per QphH
Database: Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
OS: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Hardware: Unisys 5085, with eight 700 MHz Pentium III Xeon CPUs (2MB L2 Cache) sharing 4 GB RAM and seven RAID disk controllers. (That's a total of 8 CPU's and 4 GB RAM.)

SGI, May 2001 (100GB database size, 16 CPU cluster, Linux 2.4.3)

Score: 2733 QphH (Queries per Hour, tpc/H)
$/Score: 347 US dollars per QphH
Database: IBM DB2 UDB EEE 7.2
OS: 2.4.3 Linux kernel with SGI's ProPack 1.5 kernel patch
Hardware: Four SGI 1450 servers; each server has four 700 MHz Pentium III Xeon CPUs (2MB L2 Cache) sharing 4 GB RAM and five Fibre Channel disk controllers. (That's a total of 16 CPU's and 16 GB RAM.)

The SGI result is noteworthy not because it's particularly great, but because it's the first audited TPC benchmark of any sort reported for Linux.


SAP S&D Benchmark Results

The SAP "Sales & Distribution" benchmark tests the performance of the SD module of SAP's very popular R/3 business suite. Approximately 14% of the CPU cycles on the server are spent in the database; the rest are spent in SAP's code. The benchmark is defined at www.sap.com/solutions/technology/ and/or www.sap.com/solutions/technology/bench.htm. That page also links to "R/3 Benchmarks - Results" (updated periodically), a complete discussion of certified SAP benchmark results of various sorts.
Some info is also available second-hand from IdeasInternational.com here. See also http://www.sap.com/linux/.

Note that you can't compare the results of this benchmark run on different releases of R/3. According to Siemens, release 4.0 is 30% slower than release 3.x, and it looks like release 4.6 is somewhat slower than release 4.0.

Also note that the SAP S&D benchmark comes in two flavors: two-tier and three-tier. The two-tier tests involve a single server; the three-tier tests are much larger.

Recent Two-Tier SAP S&D Benchmark Results for Intel-based Servers

An up to date summary of the Two-Tier S&D benchmark results is online at www.sap.com/solutions/technology/benchmark/HTML/SD_2_tier_4x.htm, but it has a layout problem with anything but IE; you may prefer to view my cached copy with the layout problem fixed.

Here is an excerpt showing all the Linux results, plus benchmarks on comparable machines using Windows, plus the top performers. Results are sorted first by R/3 version, then by benchmark performance.

Date S&D Users CPU L2/cpu RAM OS R/3 DB HW Details
03/2001 375 8 900MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 8GB Win2000 AS 4.6C IBM DB2 7.1 IBM xSeries 370 Details
01/2001 312 8 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 6GB Red Hat 6.1 4.6C IBM DB2 7.1 Dell Poweredge 8450 Details
06/2001 260 8 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Win2000 4.6C MS SQL 7.0 Bull Express5800 Details
03/2001 250 4 900MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Win2000 AS 4.6C IBM DB2 7.1 IBM xSeries 250 Details
11/2000 204 4 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Red Hat 6.1/2.2.16 4.6B IBM DB2 7.1 Netfinity 7600 Details
11/2000 187 4 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Red Hat 6.1EE 4.6B SAP DB 6.2.10 Fujitsu/Siemens Primergy H400 Details
11/2000 187 4 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Win2000 AS 4.6B SAP DB 6.2.10 Fujitsu/Siemens Primergy H400 Details
06/2000 185 4 700MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Win2000 4.6B IBM DB2 6.1 Netfinity 7600 Details

11/1999 420 8 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB WinNT 4.0 4.0B Oracle 8.0.4 Fujitsu/Siemens Primergy N800 Details
11/1999 417 8 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Win2000 4.0B Oracle 8.0.4 Fujitsu/Siemens Primergy N800 Details
06/1999 374 8 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB WinNT 4.0 EE 4.0B Oracle 8.0.4 Netfinity 8500 Details
10/1999 370 8 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Linux 2.2.11 4.0B IBM DB2 6.1 Netfinity 8500 Details
03/2000 260 4 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB Linux 2.2.14 4.0B SAP DB 6.2.10 Fujitsu/Siemens Details
09/1999 241 4 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 2GB Linux 2.2.11 4.0B SAP DB 6.2.10 Siemens Primergy 870/40 Details
10/1999 255 4 550MHz PIII Xeon 2MB 4GB WinNT 4.0 4.0B Oracle 8.0.4 Netfinity 7000 M10 Details

Recent Three-Tier SAP S&D Benchmark Results for Intel-based Servers

An up to date summary of the Three-Tier S&D benchmark results is online at www.sap.com/solutions/technology/benchmark/HTML/SD_3_tier_4x.htm.

The three-tier results involve a system consisting of one database server and many application servers; the Fujitsu/Siemens results are the only ones on Linux that I know of.

Fujitsu/Siemens, December 2000

Fujitsu/Siemens demonstrated a three-tier version of the SAP S&D benchmark, where the central server was running Solaris and the middle layer of servers were running Linux. See fsc.db4web.de/DB4Web/fsc/user/en/pm_einzeln.d4w?pm_id=319 and www.sap.com/solutions/technology/benchmark/PDF/CERT2900.pdf for more info.

Related Pages


Copyright 1999,2000,2001,2002,2003 Dan Kegel
dank@kegel.com
Last updated: 14 Oct 2003
[Return to www.kegel.com]
[Click to remove frames]