centos79-0128-109 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 testing with a Cisco UCSC-C220-M3S (C220M3.3.0.3a.0.0315171956 BIOS) and Matrox MGA G200e [Pilot] on CentOS 7.9.2009.0128.109 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 (C220M3.3.0.3a.0.0315171956 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E5/Core, Memory: 8 x 16384 MB DDR3-1600MT/s M393B2G70DB0-YK0, Disk: 1196GB MR9271-8i + 12 x 161GB 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, Compiler: GCC 4.8.5 20150623, File-System: xfs, Screen Resolution: 1024x768 LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Hot Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 43.41 |============================================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1.2 |=============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2965.20 |=========================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17.3 |============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 204.55 |============================================ LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17.1 |============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 207.09 |============================================ LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 42.91 |============================================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Seek Random Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 66.87 |============================================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Delete Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 185.88 |============================================ LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17.3 |============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 204.73 |============================================ SQLite 3.30.1 Threads / Copies: 1 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3.879 |============================================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1773942 |=========================================== BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8058 |============================================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 352367 |============================================ Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.30853548 |======================================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.00309980 |======================================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1620.8 |============================================ Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 181.79 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11380 |============================================= 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 . 1648 |============================================== 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 . 0.607 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 226168 |============================================ 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 . 223876 |============================================ 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 . 0.447 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 228759 |============================================ 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 . 1.093 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3370 |============================================== 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 . 14.84 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9871 |============================================== 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 . 0.101 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2295 |============================================== 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 . 43.60 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1015 |============================================== 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 . 247.45 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1362 |============================================== 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 . 0.734 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 197621 |============================================ 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 . 0.253 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9576 |============================================== 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 . 0.104 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 188180 |============================================ 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 . 0.532 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 184517 |============================================ 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 . 1.355 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13591 |============================================= 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 . 3.682 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1130 |============================================== 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 . 0.886 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 192083 |============================================ 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 . 0.260 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 511 |=============================================== 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 . 1.956 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13629 |============================================= 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 . 7.341 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13091 |============================================= 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 . 19.10 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 181059 |============================================ 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 . 0.552 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 178045 |============================================ 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 . 1.405 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2420 |============================================== 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 . 20.67 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 276 |=============================================== 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 . 3.625 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8517 |============================================== 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 . 5.873 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2402 |============================================== 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 . 41.66 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2968 |============================================== 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 . 84.27 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 10405 |============================================= 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 . 9.632 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11152 |============================================= 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 . 22.45 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1189 |============================================== 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 . 42.26 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1276 |============================================== 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 . 78.58 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1352 |============================================== 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 . 185.94 |============================================ SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 153.64 |============================================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1085554.18 |======================================== Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Reads Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 68974 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 79454 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Mixed 1:1 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 69779 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Mixed 1:3 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 65097 |============================================= NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13495.48 |========================================== Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 15988.76 |========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 21558.97 |========================================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 105153 |============================================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.657 |============================================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11.47 |============================================= 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 . 864548.7 |========================================== 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 . 892380.5 |========================================== 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 . 899107.7 |==========================================