The Enterprise Server
The Northbridge NX801 posted better results for SQL Server than the four-processor system. Thus, I decided to use the Northbridge NX801 to compare SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition with SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition. First, I established a baseline benchmark for NT Server 4.0, UNL Processor Edition and SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition. Second, I tested SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition. Third, I benchmarked SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition and compared the three tests' results. I used Dynameasure/SQL's Order Entry/Mixed Reads and Writes test to place a measured stress on the Northbridge NX801 in its various configurations. I set my six steps to simulate 100 to 1000 users.
NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition comes with a new 4GB RAM Tuning (4GT) capability that lets memory-intensive applications use up to 50 percent more RAM on Intel servers. Microsoft informally warned the Lab that 4GT might not improve performance on systems with 2GB of RAM or less; 4GT only benefits memory-intensive applications that use more than 2GB of RAM.
Graph 4 shows each configuration's number of transactions per second at each step. SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition running on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition consistently performed more transactions per second than the other two configurations. This configuration reached 167.87 transactions per second at step 6. SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, UNL Processor Edition reached 157.24 transactions per second, and SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition reached 144.01 transactions per second at step 6. All three configurations' number of transactions per second continued to show linear increases through step 6.
Graph 5 shows each configuration's average response time at each step. SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition achieved lower average response times than the other configurations for most steps. SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition running on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition averaged a response time of 0.86 seconds at step 6, which was considerably slower than either of the other two configurations. SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition had an average response time of only 0.29 seconds at step 6. SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, UNL Processor Edition had an average response time of 0.47 seconds in step 6.
Graph 6, page 73, shows each configuration's number of motors per step. SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition supported a maximum of 879 motors in my tests; SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition on NT Server 4.0, UNL Processor Edition and SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition on NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition both supported a maximum of 858 motors. I was surprised to find that these configurations supported similar numbers of motors. I was even more surprised that the Northbridge NX801 didn't limit the number of motors my tests could run. The Lab's benchmarking network reached its limit when the control server that Dynameasure uses to conduct the tests and measure the results couldn't keep up with the Northbridge NX801. I couldn't overstress the Northbridge NX801 using the Lab's current benchmarking setup.
The linear projections of all the software configurations' transactions per second and motors per step reveal that the SQL Server configurations on this eight-processor SMP could have continued to perform well under more stress than the Lab's network could provide. The Northbridge NX801's ability to handle a workload of nearly 1000 users is impressive. After I make some serious upgrades to the benchmarking network, I can't wait to determine SQL Server's true upper limits on the next eight-processor system the Lab has access to.
What's Ahead
NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition performed better than NT Server 4.0, UNL Processor Edition, and SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition did not fare well against SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition. However, my tests don't demonstrate conclusively that SQL Server 6.5, Standard Edition works better in an enterprise setting than SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition works. Because I didn't have access to a server with more than 2GB of RAM, I don't know whether the 4GT technology affected my tests.
In future articles, the Lab will test other eight-processor SMP systems that have more than 2GB of RAM. I hope those tests will provide more conclusive information about SQL Server 6.5, Enterprise Edition's performance. The Lab's goal is to determine whether upgrading hardware and software to an eight-processor SMP system is a cost-effective method of improving enterprise performance.
End of Article
Prev. page
1
[2]
next page -->
