> I'm not sure that I follow your argument. The T1000's architecture > favors workloads that have many parallel tasks that involve data > throughput. The Xenon is going to have a better showing for straight > number-crunching work. If your webserver benchmark is trying to measure > the throughput for a few clients that perform simple tasks, then I can > understand why you might expect the Xenon to do better. However, if > you're trying to measure a workload that has many clients and measures > in ops/sec, the T1000 may well do better.
This is exactly why I created this benchmark. On the T1000 it uses 32 threads to encrypt the file in parallel - exactly the situation this machine is supposed to shine in. From the performance counters I can tell that the CPU is maxed, for a total of close to 8 billion operations per second, so that there is almost no internal stalling. My point was that even in this situation the UltraSPARC T1 lags considerably behind the quad-core Xeon. --Elad _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
