centos79-fw4-try3 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 testing with a Cisco UCSC-C220-M3S (C220M3.3.0.4e.0.1106191007 BIOS) and Matrox MGA G200e [Pilot] on CentOS 7.9.2009 via the Phoronix Test Suite. 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0: Processor: 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz (16 Cores / 32 Threads), Motherboard: Cisco UCSC-C220-M3S (C220M3.3.0.4e.0.1106191007 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E5/Core, Memory: 8 x 16384 MB DDR3-1600MT/s M393B2G70BH0-YK0, Disk: 2396GB MR9266-8i + 12 x 54GB FlashArray, Graphics: Matrox MGA G200e [Pilot], Network: Cisco VIC NIC OS: CentOS 7.9.2009, Kernel: 3.10.0-1160.11.1.el7.x86_64 (x86_64), Display Server: X Server, Display Driver: matrox, Compiler: GCC 4.8.5 20150623, File-System: xfs, Screen Resolution: 1024x768 SQLite 3.30.1 Threads / Copies: 1 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3.649 |============================================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1730333 |=========================================== BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 6114 |============================================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 350597 |============================================ Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.31103693 |======================================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.00303316 |======================================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1623.5 |============================================ Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 181.92 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11333 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.088 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1659 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.603 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 226050 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.221 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 221118 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.453 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 226898 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1.102 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3369 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 14.86 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9799 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.102 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2680 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 37.35 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1838 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 136.88 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1468 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.681 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 195819 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.255 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9570 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.105 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 184761 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.542 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 177882 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1.406 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8815 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5.677 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1400 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.715 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 190067 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.263 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 428 |=============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.342 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8883 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11.27 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8801 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 28.44 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 178692 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.560 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 171671 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1.457 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4539 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11.03 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 335 |=============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.998 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 6289 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7.965 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4861 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 20.59 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5078 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 49.26 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7626 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13.13 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8279 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 30.22 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3278 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 15.28 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3009 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 33.27 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2898 |============================================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 86.51 |============================================= SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 153.80 |============================================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1113866.49 |======================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Reads Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 51149 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 82581 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Mixed 1:1 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 22357 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Mixed 1:3 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9213 |============================================== NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13604.16 |========================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2375 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 428 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13813 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 288 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 36587 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 434 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 32 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 46381 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 32 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 685 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 64 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 47235 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 64 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1349 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 128 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 47348 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 128 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2691 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2979 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 344 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 26007 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 153 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 75187 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 210 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 32 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 102208 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 32 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 309 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 64 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 111847 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 64 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 566 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 41280 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 23 |================================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 148267 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 65 |================================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 128 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 113757 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 128 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1113 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 160187 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 125 |=============================================== Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 16181.80 |========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 21900.86 |========================================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 105883 |============================================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.677 |============================================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11.14 |============================================= InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 4 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 862182.0 |========================================== InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 64 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 891048.5 |========================================== InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 1024 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 902594.4 |==========================================