Our community is talking about the new Dell Technologies. Join the discussion in the Dell EMC Community Network:
This is an optional hotfix and can be installed on the following vWorkspace roles -
The following is a list of issues resolved in this release.
Application window overlaps the Windows taskbar on reconnected sessions.
vWorkspace shell stops working after shell configuration completes.
This hotfix is available for download at: https://support.software.dell.com/kb/196415
Effective Communication has Multiple Dimensions
Easy and effective communication between users and IT engineers is critical for swift resolution of problems. This communication often starts when users report an issue to the service desk. Support technicians need to be able to efficiently create tickets, prioritize issues, route tickets to the proper engineers, escalate them when necessary, and track them to completion — while keeping users informed about status throughout the process. IT staff members need to be able to pose troubleshooting questions and suggest workarounds, and users need to be able to easily respond to their questions and report back on their success with suggested fixes. Moreover, with today’s increasing mobile workforce, both users and IT staff need to be able to communicate no matter where they are.
Good communication, however, extends well beyond the ticket lifecycle. Good communication is proactive, enabling IT to keep users informed about common problems and current outages or other widespread issues, and provide a knowledge base of how-to’s, known fixes and workarounds. By offering a self-service portal with this information, organizations can reduce the number of service tickets created while improving user satisfaction and productivity.
Even more broadly, good communication includes easy access to relevant information. When service desk technicians can quickly access up-to-date information about all computer devices and assets on the network, inventory reports, configuration status, and device history — ideally from an integrated console — they can troubleshoot tickets faster, with fewer requests for details from users.
What to Look for in a Service Desk Solution
Together, these components of effective communication can reduce mean time to resolution while improving productivity for both users and IT staff. Therefore, you should look for a service desk solution that facilitates great communication by providing:
Everything You Need in One Solution
The Dell KACE K1000 Systems Management Appliance includes an integrated service desk that delivers all of these capabilities and more. With the K1000, you can enable effective communication in every direction to speed issue reporting and resolution, reduce service desk workload, and improve productivity for users and IT staff alike.
To learn more about why effective communication is vital in a service desk solution and what other functionality it must provide to make your users happy and your IT staff more productive, check out our new white paper, The Ten Key Features You Need in a Service Desk Solution.
About Stephen Hatch
Stephen is a Senior Product Marketing Manager for Dell KACE. He has over eight years of experience with KACE and over 20 years of marketing communications experience.
View all posts by Stephen Hatch
Authors: Mayura Deshmukh, Ashish K Singh, Neha Kashyap
With the refresh of Dell’s 13th generation servers with the recently released Broadwell (BDW) processors, some obvious questions come to mind such as how the new processors compare with the older generation processors. This blog, fourth in the series of “Broadwell Performance for HPC,” focuses on answering this question. It compares the performance of various CAE applications for five Broadwell Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 series processor models with previous generation Intel processors.
Last week’s blog talked about the impact of BIOS options for each of the CAE applications. Here we focus on how much better the performance of the Broadwell processors is as compared to the previous generation Haswell (HSW) and Ivy-bridge (IVB) processors for these CAE applications. Table 1 shows the applications that we are comparing and Table 2 describes the server configuration used for the study. For LS-DYNA, the benchmarks run on the IVB and HSW (sse binary) and for ANSYS Fluent, benchmarks run on Westmere (WSM), Ivy-bridge (IVB), Sandy-bridge(SB) and HSW used different software versions (whatever latest version was available at the time) than what is mentioned in Table 1. STAR-CCM+ and OpenFOAM version for benchmarks run on both HSW and BDW were same.
Table 1 - Applications and benchmarks
Platform MPI 9.1.0
Average Elapsed time
Platform MPI 9.1.3
Platform MPI 22.214.171.124
Open MPI 1.10.0
Table 2 - Server configuration
256GB - 16 x 16GB 2400 MHz DDR4 RDIMMs
6 x 300GB SAS 6Gbps 10K rpm
PERC H330 mini
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.2 (3.10.0-327.el7.x86_64)
System profile - Performance
Logical Processor - Disabled
Power Supply Redundant Policy - Not Redundant
Power Supply Hot Spare Policy - Disabled
I/O Non-Posted Prefetch - Disabled
Snoop Mode - Opportunistic Snoop Broadcast (OSB) for OpenFOAM and Cluster on Die (COD) for all the other applications
Node interleaving - Disabled
Figure 1 compares the performance of the five BDW Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 series processors models with HSW Intel Xeon E5-2600 v3 series processors and IVB E5-2680 v2 for LS-DYNA car2car benchmark (with end time set to 0.02).
Figure 1: IVB vs. HSW vs BDW for LS-DYNA
The performance for all the processors is compared to E5-2680 v2, which is shown as the red baseline set at 1. The green bars show the performance for the HSW processors with LS-DYNA single precision sse binary, the grey bar represents data for HSW E5-2697 v3 with LS-DYNA single precision avx2 binary, the blue bars show the data for BDW processors with LS-DYNA single precision sse binary and the orange bars represent the BDW data with LS-DYNA single precision avx2 binary. For BDW, avx2 binaries perform 12-19% better than the sse binaries across all the processor models. The purple diamonds describe the performance per core compared to the E5-2680 v2. The percentages at the top of the BDW avx2 orange bar describe the percentage improvement of the BDW processors over HSW E5-2697 v3 avx2 (grey bar in the graph). The 12 core BDW E5-2650 v4 which has fewer cores and lower frequency understandably performs 11% lower than the Haswell E5-2697 v3 processor. The 14 core E5-2690 v4 which has same number of cores and similar avx2 frequencies performs 7% better than the E5-2697 v3 this can be accounted for due to the increase in bandwidth for Broadwell and BDW processors also measure better power efficiencies than Haswell processors. The performance for the 16core, 20core and 22core processors is 16 to 30% higher than the HSW E5-2697 v3 (avx2). Comparing the performance, performance per core and the higher memory bandwidth per core, the E5-2690 v4 14c and E5-2697Av4 16c look like attractive options for CAE/CFD codes, particularly when considering per core licensing costs.
CD-adapco’s STAR-CCM+ is another CFD application widely-used by industry for solving problems involving fluid flows, heat transfer, and other phenomena. STAR-CCM+ shows similar performance patterns to LS-DYNA.
Figure 2: HSW vs BDW for STAR-CCM+
Figure 2 compares the performance of the five BDW Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 series processors models (shown as the five bars in the graph) with HSW E5-2697 v3 shown as the red line set at one. The numbers at the top of the bar show the per core performance relative to the E5-2697 v3. As seen from the bars the 14core, 16core, 20core and the 22core relative performance is higher by 8% to 40% across all the benchmarks. The lower core, lower frequency 12core E5-2650 performs 11-20% lower than the E5-2697 v3. Similar to LS-DYNA, the per core performance of the 14core and the 16core is 2% to 11% better than the HSW E5-2697 v3 making them good options for STAR-CCM+ as well.
ANSYS Fluent is a computational fluid dynamics application. The graph in Figure 3 shows the performance of truck_poly_14m for Sandy-bridge (SB), Ivy-bridge (IVB), HSW and BDW processors compared to the Westmere (WSM) processor shown as the redline set at one.
Figure 3: WSM vs. SB vs. IVY vs. HSW vs. BDW for ANSYS Fluent
The Fluent benchmark exhibit a similar pattern as LS-DYNA and STAR-CCM+ benchmarks. The purple diamonds in Figure 3 describe the performance per core compared to the WSM 2.93GHz processor. The percentages at the top of the BDW blue bar describe the percentage improvement of the BDW processors over HSW E5-2697 v3 (green bar in the graph). The 12 core BDW E5-2650 v4 which has fewer cores and lower frequency performs 14% lower than the Haswell E5-2697 v3 processor. With higher performance per core and the higher memory bandwidth per core, the E5-2690 v4 14c, E5-2697Av4 16c are good options, particularly when considering per core software licensing costs, and perform 11% and 21% better than the E5-2697 v3 processor. The 20 and 22core BDW processors perform 32%-39% better than the HSW E5-2697 v3.
OpenFOAM (Open source Field Operation And Manipulation) is a free, open source software for computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
Figure 4: HSW vs. BDW for OpenFOAM Motorbike 11M benchmark
As shown in Figure 4 for the OpenFOAM Motorbike 11M benchmark, all the Broadwell processors perform 12% to 21% better than the Haswell E5-2697 v3 processor, shown as the red line set at one. Per core performance for the 16 core, 14 core and 12 core is 4% to 30% better than the E5-2697 v3.The performance for the 20 core and the 22 core BDW processors are the same for the Motorbike 11M benchmark. Increase in number of cores does not provide a significant performance boost for 20 and 22 core parts likely due to lower memory bandwidth per core as explained in the first blog’s STREAM results.
Along with more cores than HSW, BDW measures better power efficiency than HSW. Looking at the absolute performance, performance per core and the higher memory bandwidth per core, the E5-2690 v4 14c, E5-2697Av4 16c are attractive options for CAE/CFD codes particularly if per-core licensing costs are involved. For applications like OpenFOAM (motorbike case) all the BDW processors performed better than Haswell E5-2697 v3, but the increase in number of cores does not provide a significant performance boost for 20 and 22 core parts due to lower memory bandwidth per core.
With OpenStack evolving so quickly, a key challenge is how to take advantage of the robust and vibrant options for customization from the OpenStack community without creating unnecessary complexity, and forcing customers into a locked-down platform. Our co-engineering work with Red Hat and others solves this dilemma with the release of Dell Red Hat OpenStack cloud solution V 5.0.
Dell Red Hat Cloud Solution V 5.0 brings together a core architecture with selected extensions creating an adaptive infrastructure that integrates the best innovations from the OpenStack community with proven Dell and Red Hat platforms. The extensions are thoroughly validated, just like the core architecture, to ensure a consistent seamless cloud environment that just works.
Today we offer the following validated extensions:
With our core architecture plus validated extension approach, we are embracing and enhancing the openness and flexibility of OpenStack. Each validated extension is supported with documented guidance for implementation and this documentation is freely available here on the Dell Tech Center community web site. We are looking forward to expanding this portfolio of innovative extensions to our core architecture as new capabilities in OpenStack become ready for deployment in the enterprise.
IT departments today are striving to support new business initiatives, meet regulatory compliance requirements and operate under tough budget constraints.
Strategically implementing best practices, such as the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), can help with all of these challenges. ITIL is a mature set of generally accepted information technology control objectives that IT managers, business managers and auditors can use to ensure the delivery of the best possible information services to users and improve IT efficiency and effectiveness.
But while the potential rewards of ITIL adoption are great, actually implementing these best practices often proves to be a daunting task. All too often, organizations end up with broad, unfocused programs that struggle to deliver incremental value or that are stopped dead in their tracks.
Fortunately, there are pragmatic ways to incrementally implement ITIL best practices that can reduce complexity and deliver measurable results quickly. It’s critical to choose a solution that enables you to adopt portions of a best practices framework, such as service desk functionality, without having to deploy all of the components immediately. That way, you can implement ITIL in a pragmatic fashion, step by step.
Choosing a Service Desk that Helps You Align with ITIL Best Practices
Because IT organizations are often swamped with more trouble tickets than they have resources to address, a service desk solution can be the perfect component to begin your ITIL implementation journey. But it’s important to choose the right one. Look for a service desk solution that will help your organization align with ITIL best practices by delivering the following features and functionality:
Pragmatic ITIL implementation with Dell
If you’re ready to begin a practical, targeted implementations of ITIL best practices, be sure to take a look at the Dell KACE systems management appliances, which will help your organization begin to implement ITIL simply, effectively and inexpensively
A great place to start is the Dell KACE K1000 Systems Management Appliance, which offers an integrated service desk that delivers all the functionality listed above, so you can improve user productivity while reducing IT workload and costs. Then explore how Dell KACE appliances can enable additional ITIL processes, including configuration management, change management and release management, all from a common, centralized interface. You can adopt these components in an orderly fashion, improving IT efficiency and user satisfaction with every step.
Happy Users and Productive IT Staff
To learn more about how to choose a service desk that will make your users happy and your IT staff more productive, check out our new white paper, The Ten Key Features You Need in a Service Desk Solution.
The annual Earth Day celebration is upon us, and with it the goal to spotlight the planet’s environment, and increase public awareness of what can be done to reduce pollution and improve sustainability. Started in 1970, the original intent was to organize a nationwide movement that focused on educating people regarding the fragility of our environment, and develop ways to better defend our planet. Initially a grass roots movement, it has gained public support and has been the driver for such mandates as the creation of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the passage of the Clean Air Act and the Water Quality Improvement Act, among others.
Reading a recent article about Earth Day and its goals got me thinking about our own world of Information Technology, and how we in IT try to be more ecologically responsible. In fact, it kicked off an informal discussion in our office, which centered on the question...
What ever happened to Green IT?
What had been the topic du jour for technology publications and industry pundits a few short years ago, now seems to have faded away like the iPhone 4. But what might be the reason for the disappearance of Green IT, or at least its shift in focus? My colleagues had some interesting views:
Just for validation, we did an informal poll of our customers to try to understand their take on Green IT and how it played (or didn’t play) in a variety of organizations. Not surprisingly, we were greeted with a breadth of responses:
Dell has always been a leader in sustainability, from recycling initiatives to innovative ways to create packaging that doesn’t end up as land fill fodder.
At Dell Software, we’ve also kept an eye toward environmental and ecological best practices via our Dell KACE systems management appliances. The ability to perform centralized configuration management, power down idle endpoint devices via power management capabilities, the elimination of travel necessary for systems deployment and remote management, the availability of a virtual appliance or hosted appliance that reduces energy consumption and resource drain, all combine to make Green IT a reality — even if it’s not today’s top news story.
Welcome Earth Day, we’re all still working hard on minimizing our IT carbon footprint.
To that end, we invite you to view an on-demand demonstration of the Dell KACE Systems Management and Systems Deployment Appliances.
House of Old v. House of Agile
Who rules your database environment?
Now that season 6 of Game of Thrones has started, winter will come again to Westeros. The Lannisters and the Starks are at it again. The question marks left from the season 5 finale will be filled in (I hope).
And your company’s agile application development teams will continue to outpace the more traditional, manual release process of database development.
Letting agile take the throne
Sure, current database development processes help reduce the risk of data loss in a live production database. But they’re also causing a huge bottleneck, keeping the organization as a whole from realizing the full promise of agile: the ability to release software in prompt response to market changes.
Application developers have long pledged their allegiance to House Agile, taking advantage of streamlined practices to shorten development cycles and reduce the risks associated with change. So what’s really stopping database developers from overthrowing their traditional processes and letting agile take the throne?
As much of the cast of Game of Thrones seems to know, a few important differences between these houses of application and database development can wage war on your progress toward agile:
Just as the Lannisters have been wreaking havoc for generations, these vastly different environments don’t seem to be going away any time soon. But you can begin your journey toward House Agile by automating as many of your traditional processes as possible.
Check out this e-book: Getting Agile with Database Development
Like Brienne and Podrick, we can't knight you, but we can teach you how to fight. We’ve put together an e-book, It’s Time to Get Agile, loaded with guiding principles for creating agile database development environments and suggested resources to help you get there.
Realizing the promise of agile doesn’t have to be just a fantasy. Take a look at our e-book to get armed with the right tools to help you proudly swing your agile sword.
About Nicole Tamms
Nicole is an experienced product marketer with over seven years of experience. She has also held various other technology marketing and corporate communications roles at Quest, now part of Dell, over the past 15 years. She has specialized in industry analyst relations and media relations as the PR and analyst relations manager for Quest, prior to her roles in product marketing.
View all posts by Nicole Tamms |
Last week’s blog on the “Broadwell Performance for HPC” series described the BIOS options and compared performance across generations of processors for molecular dynamic applications (NAMD) and Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF). This blog, third in the series, focuses on BIOS options for some HPC CAE applications for five different Broadwell Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 series processor models. It aims to answer questions like, which snoop mode works best for my application and processor? Which BIOS System Profile would give the best performance?
There have been a few changes in the BIOS options for Broadwell as compared with the previous generation (Haswell). One of the major additions in the Broadwell BIOS is the “Opportunistic Snoop Broadcast” snoop mode in the Memory settings. This blog discusses performance of the applications for all four snoop modes: Opportunistic snoop broadcast (OSB), Early snoop (ES), Home snoop (HS) and Cluster on die (COD). For more information on the new BIOS options and snoop modes check blog one of this series.
The Dell BIOS “System Profile” setting can be set to either of the four pre-configured profiles: Performance Per Watt (DAPC), Performance Per Watt (OS), Performance (Perf.) and Dense Configuration or set to Custom. In the pre-configured profiles the Turbo Boost, C States, C1E, CPU Power Management, Memory Frequency, Memory Patrol Scrub, Memory Refresh Rate, Uncore Frequency are preset whereas for Custom the User can choose values for these options. For more information on System Profiles check the link. DAPC and OS have shown to perform similarly in past studies, and Dense Configuration performs lower for HPC workloads, so we will be focusing on DAPC and Performance Profiles in this study. The DAPC (Dell Active Power Control) Profile relies on a BIOS-centric power control mechanism. Energy efficient turbo, C States, C1E are enabled with the DAPC Profile. Performance Profile disables power saving features such as C-states, Energy efficient turbo and C1E. Turbo boost is enabled in both the System Profiles.
This blog discusses the performance of CAE applications with DAPC and Performance profile for each of the four snoop modes for five different Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 series Broadwell processors. Table 1 shows the application and benchmark details and Table 2 describes the server configuration used for the study.
System Profile - Performance and Performance Per Watt (DAPC)
Snoop Mode - Opportunistic Snoop Broadcast (OSB), Early Snoop (ES), Home Snoop (HS), Cluster on Die (COD)
LS-DYNA is a general-purpose finite element program from LSTC capable of simulating complex real-world structural mechanics problems. We ran the car2car benchmark with endtime set to 0.02 with both the single precision avx2 and the single precision sse LS-DYNA binaries.
Figure 1: Comparing snoop modes and BIOS Profiles for LS-DYNA
The left graph in Figure 1 shows how better or worse the different snoop modes perform compared to the default setting of snoop mode = OSB and BIOS profile=DAPC (which is set at 1, the red line on the graph). Just changing the snoop mode to COD increases performance by 1-3% with either BIOS profiles across all the processor models. The performance with COD is closely followed by OSB followed by ES for lower core counts and HS for 16, 20 and 22 core processors. With ES mode, the system starts paying the penalty of having lower request tokens per core for higher core counts compared to the other snoop modes (for e.g. for 14 core 128/14 = 9 per core Vs. 128/22 = 5 per core for 22 core). All the snoop modes with the System Profile set to Performance follow similar pattern as DAPC. As shown in the graph on the right in Figure 1, changing the System Profile from DAPC to Performance can provide up to 2% performance benefit. The COD.Perf is the best option, about 2-4% better compared to OSB.DAPC across all processor models. The total 2-4% improvement with COD.Perf is accounted partially due to the change in snoop mode and partially due to change in the BIOS System Profile to Performance. We ran the car2car benchmark for all the combinations above with the sse LS-DYNA binary as well and noted similar behavior with the Performance System Profile and COD snoop mode being 2-6% better than the default OSB.DAPC. The avx2 binaries performed 12-19% better than the sse binaries across all the processor models.
CD-adapco® STAR-CCM+ is another CFD application widely-used by industry for solving problems involving fluid flows, heat transfer, and other phenomena. The STAR-CCM+ benchmarks results show a pattern similar to LS-DYNA in terms of snoop mode and System Profile.
Figure 2: Comparing snoop modes for STAR-CCM+
Figure 2 compares the snoop modes for the Civil_20m and Lemans_17m benchmarks. For simplicity, data for these two benchmarks are shown. The other benchmarks datasets show results similar to the patterns in Figure 2. The BIOS profile in the graphs is set to DAPC and the snoop modes are compared against the default OSB snoop mode (which is set at 1, the red line on the graph). The COD is the best option for the Civil_20m benchmark, it is about 2-3% better for DAPC. For the Performance System Profile COD is 4-6% better for the Civil_20m benchmark (not shown in the graph). COD is followed by OSB and then ES for smaller core counts. Performance with ES though starts reducing as the cores increase similar to what was observed with LS-DYNA car2car benchmark case. The HlMach10 benchmark shows similar pattern to the Civil_20m benchmark. For the HlMach10 benchmark case the COD.Perf option is 2-7% better than the default OSB.DAPC.
All the other benchmarks (EglinStoreSeparation, Kcs, Lemans_100m, Reactor9m, TurboCharger, Vtm) show similar pattern to Lemans_17m. The COD and OSB perform similarly, there is only ~1% difference between OSB and COD across the benchmark cases across all processor models. After COD and OSB, ES option is better for lower core counts and HS for 16, 20 and 22 core processors. As mentioned previously, the system in ES mode starts paying the penalty of having lower request tokens per core for higher core counts compared to the other snoop modes.
Figure 3: DAPC vs. Performance with COD snoop mode for STARCCM+
The graph in figure 3 compares the System Profile BIOS options DAPC and Performance. We are comparing the performance of COD.Perf with respect to COD.DAPC, which is the red baseline set at 1 in the graph. The Performance profile provides 2-4% benefit over the DAPC for the Civil_20m benchmark for all the processor models. Also for the high core count, E5-2699 v4 the Performance profile performs 2-5% better across all the benchmarks. For all the other processor models there is not a significant gain (only about 1%) with the Performance profile for all the benchmarks (except Civil_20m).
ANSYS Fluent is a computational fluid dynamics application. Fluent provides multiple benchmark cases. We picked four representative cases from the v16 benchmark suite: combustor_12m, combustor_71m, exhaust_system_33m and ice_2m and one from the older v15 benchmark suite: truck_poly_14m, to allow us to compare our data with previous generation processor models. The Fluent benchmarks exhibit a similar pattern as LS-DYNA and STAR-CCM+ benchmarks.
Figure 4: Comparing snoop modes for ANSYS Fluent
The graph in Figure 4 shows the performance of truck_poly_14m for all the snoop modes compared to the default OSB.DAPC which is shown as the red baseline in the graphs. All the other benchmarks show a similar pattern. COD performs up to 2% better than OSB for truck_poly_14m, combustor_12m and ice_2m. COD is about 5% better for combustor_71m and 6% better for exhaust_33m. COD is followed by OSB, followed by ES for lower core counts and HS for higher core count processors for all the benchmarks.
Figure 5: DAPC vs. Performance with COD snoop mode for ANSYS Fluent
Figure 5 shows the performance for Performance profile with respect to DAPC with COD set as the snoop mode for both options. DAPC is shown as the red baseline in the graph. The Performance BIOS profile option is about 4% better for all the processor models for the larger combustor_71m and exhaust_33m benchmark cases. The Performance profile is 1-3% better for the other benchmark cases.
OpenFOAM (Open source Field Operation And Manipulation) is a free, open source software for computational fluid dynamics (CFD). OpenFOAM was compiled with -march=native / Broadwell option. We used the cavity-1M and motorBike-11M datasets which are modifications of the OpenFOAM tutorials/incompressible/icoFoam/cavity and tutorials/incompressible/simpleFoam/motorBike models respectively.
Figure 6: Comparing snoop modes and BIOS Profiles for OpenFOAM Cavity 1M benchmark
As shown in left graph of figure 6 for DAPC System Profile, the benchmark performance increases by 3-6% when in COD snoop mode when compared to OSB. ES and HS options perform up to 3% lower than OSB across all the processor models. The pattern is similar for the Performance System Profile, where COD is better by 3-7% followed by OSB. HS is lower than OSB but better than ES for all the processors models except for the 20core E5-2698 v4 where ES is 1% better than HS for DAPC profile and 7% better than HS for Performance System Profile. There is not a lot of difference in performance for DAPC Vs Performance profile especially for the higher frequency processors 14core E5-2690v4 and the 16core E5-2697A v4. For the other models the Performance profile shows up to 4% benefit as shown in the right graph of figure 6.
Figure 7: Comparing snoop modes and BIOS Profiles for OpenFOAM Motorbike 11M benchmark
For the openFOAM motorbike 11M benchmark the OSB, COD and the HS snoop modes perform similarly with about 1% variation. The performance for ES is low across all the processor models and it keeps on dropping as the number of cores increase as shown in the left graph of figure 7. The snoop modes with BIOS System Profile set to Performance follow exactly similar trend. As shown in the right graph on figure 3, the DAPC and Performance profiles show similar performance with Performance about 1% better in most cases except for the E5-2697A where the DAPC.COD was 2% better.
Most of the data sets used in this study show advantage of COD mode, but COD benefits codes which are highly NUMA optimized and where the dataset fit into the NUMA memory (that is half of each sockets memory capacity). OSB is a close second and a good option for codes with varying level of NUMA optimization; OSB is also the default memory snoop BIOS option. HS and ES perform slightly lower than COD and OSB. ES is better than HS for lower core counts but as the core counts increase ES starts paying the penalty of having lower request tokens per core for higher core counts compared to the other snoop modes. In terms of System Profile, Performance Profile performs slightly better than DAPC in most of the cases.
Be sure to check back next week for the last blog in the series which will compare the performance of HPC CAE applications across generations (Ivy-bridge vs. Haswell vs. Broadwell)
Join us April 22nd at 11:00 AM PST for this month's #ThinkChat event live on Twitter! Talk with and learn from folks in the industry on how to successfully implement Big Data and IoT projects. This month's #ThinkChat gives us an opportunity to share and discover what technologies others have been experimenting with to deliver on both Big Data / IoT initiatives. We will invite Big Data gurus along with IoT implementers to join in the conversation. Hope you will join us as well!
Follow #ThinkChat on Twitter and join the conversation!
Where: Live on Twitter – Follow Hashtag #ThinkChat to get your questions answered and participate in the conversation!
When: April 22, at 11:00 AM PST
Questions discussed on this program will include:
About Joanna Schloss
Joanna Schloss is a subject matter expert in the Dell Center of Excellence specializing in data and information management. Her areas of expertise include big data analytics, business intelligence, business analytics, and data warehousing.
View all posts by Joanna Schloss |
Think about all the money your organisation spends on Oracle databases each year, and how nice it would be if you could spend less. How can you get a better return on your investment?
Jim Katsos and I have put together a series of live events around Australia in early April called How to Maximise the Value of Your Oracle Investment with Dell Software. We’re going to discuss how you use Oracle, how much variety there is in the database landscape nowadays, and how many choices you have in the tools you depend on to keep your organisation running smoothly on Oracle.
Here’s a taste of what we’ll cover.
As pre-sales engineers, Jim and I are on the business end of a lot of database heartburn. We’ve designed our roadshow to air the questions and issues we hear most often and show you that you’re not the only Oracle professional out there who has them.
We at Dell don’t have a horse in the database race (we’ve never been a database vendor), but we’ve managed to make companies of all sizes in all industries happy with our broad line of database tools for the most common tasks DBAs execute:
Many of our customers have used these tools on multiple database platforms, including Oracle, to reduce their budgets, increase their ROI on databases and improve performance and uptime.