cent79upgrade-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 7.9.2009 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 MR9271-8i + 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 . 3.965 |============================================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1764092 |=========================================== BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 6364 |============================================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 348642 |============================================ Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.30338025 |======================================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.00304545 |======================================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1622.9 |============================================ Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 181.21 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11365 |============================================= 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 . 1643 |============================================== 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 . 0.609 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 225418 |============================================ 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 . 0.222 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 220217 |============================================ 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 . 0.455 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 227437 |============================================ 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 . 1.100 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3351 |============================================== 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 . 14.94 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9829 |============================================== 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 . 2575 |============================================== 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 . 38.88 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1767 |============================================== 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 . 142.47 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1453 |============================================== 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 . 0.689 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 196023 |============================================ 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 . 9533 |============================================== 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 . 184905 |============================================ 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 . 0.541 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 176064 |============================================ 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 . 1.421 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8875 |============================================== 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 . 5.638 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1366 |============================================== 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 . 0.732 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 189685 |============================================ 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 . 0.264 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 411 |=============================================== 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 . 2.433 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8971 |============================================== 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 . 11.16 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8881 |============================================== 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 . 28.17 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 178099 |============================================ 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 . 0.562 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 171545 |============================================ 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 . 1.458 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4573 |============================================== 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 . 10.95 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 338 |=============================================== 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 . 2.966 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5826 |============================================== 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 . 8.592 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4854 |============================================== 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 . 20.64 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5199 |============================================== 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 . 48.14 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7515 |============================================== 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 . 13.35 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7961 |============================================== 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 . 31.47 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3125 |============================================== 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 . 16.01 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3008 |============================================== 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 . 33.38 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2942 |============================================== 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 . 85.24 |============================================= SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 153.59 |============================================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1110513.56 |======================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Reads Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2898 |============================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 80951 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Mixed 1:1 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 5175 |============================================== Apache Cassandra 3.11.4 Test: Mixed 1:3 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3200 |============================================== NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13821.19 |========================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2136 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 477 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13349 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 298 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 36869 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 430 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 32 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 45820 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 32 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 695 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 64 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 47438 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 64 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1342 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 128 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 45625 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 128 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2793 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3012 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 331 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 23513 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 169 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 65402 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 242 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 32 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 92404 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 32 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 343 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 64 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 103557 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 64 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 613 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 41042 |============================================= 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 . 161213 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 45 |================================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 128 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 108093 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 128 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1174 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 121392 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 178 |=============================================== Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 15858.12 |========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 200 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 21916.3 |=========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 7828.42 |=========================================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 106142 |============================================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.713 |============================================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11.37 |============================================= 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 . 629973.9 |========================================== 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 . 669986.3 |========================================== 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 . 666102.8 |==========================================