cent74-fw4 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 7.4.1708 via the Phoronix Test Suite. 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0: Processor: 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 @ 3.50GHz (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 DDR3-1600MHz M393B2G70BH0-YK0, Disk: 2396GB MR9271-8i + 12 x 54GB FlashArray, Graphics: Matrox MGA G200e [Pilot], Network: Cisco VIC NIC OS: CentOS 7.4.1708, Kernel: 3.10.0-693.2.2.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 . 7.621 |============================================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1551959 |=========================================== BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7113 |============================================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 365591 |============================================ Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.29884282 |======================================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.00275552 |======================================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1627.9 |============================================ Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 155.74 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 12266 |============================================= 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 . 0.082 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1751 |============================================== 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 . 0.571 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 248492 |============================================ 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 . 0.201 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 243252 |============================================ 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 . 0.411 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 247103 |============================================ 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 . 1.012 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3411 |============================================== 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 . 14.67 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 10825 |============================================= 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 . 0.092 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2694 |============================================== 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 . 37.15 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1830 |============================================== 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 . 137.30 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1440 |============================================== 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 . 0.696 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 216268 |============================================ 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 . 0.231 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 10361 |============================================= 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 . 0.097 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 203434 |============================================ 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 . 0.492 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 193467 |============================================ 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 . 1.293 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8878 |============================================== 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 . 5.640 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1427 |============================================== 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 . 0.701 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 209767 |============================================ 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 . 0.238 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 424 |=============================================== 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 . 2.359 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8680 |============================================== 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 . 11.53 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8866 |============================================== 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 . 28.22 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 196416 |============================================ 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 . 0.510 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 186468 |============================================ 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 . 1.341 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4607 |============================================== 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 . 10.86 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 345 |=============================================== 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 . 2.903 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 6425 |============================================== 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 . 7.791 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4775 |============================================== 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 . 20.95 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5192 |============================================== 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 . 48.22 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8017 |============================================== 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 . 12.49 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8486 |============================================== 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 . 29.49 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3220 |============================================== 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 . 15.54 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3058 |============================================== 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 . 32.75 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2882 |============================================== 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 . 86.87 |============================================= SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 122.60 |============================================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1125582.87 |======================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Reads Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5718 |============================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 90569 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Mixed 1:1 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7670 |============================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Mixed 1:3 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4378 |============================================== NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17155.58 |========================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1899 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 532 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 14451 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 275 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 40309 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 395 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 32 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 52108 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 32 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 610 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 64 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 52593 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 64 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1211 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 128 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 50464 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 128 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2525 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2969 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 348 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 24896 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 159 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 73689 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 215 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 32 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 105259 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 32 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 301 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 64 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 110923 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 64 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 571 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 40507 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 24 |================================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 169460 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 40 |================================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 128 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 111719 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 128 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1135 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 153793 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 158 |=============================================== Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 20495.63 |========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7401.06 |=========================================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 104326 |============================================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.754 |============================================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11.74 |============================================= 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 . 631610.5 |========================================== 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 . 669074.6 |========================================== 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 . 671427.0 |==========================================