centos79-0729-109 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 7.9.2009.0729.109 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: 3.10.0-1160.36.2.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 . 43.28 |============================================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1.4 |=============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2464.64 |=========================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17.9 |============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 197.74 |============================================ LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17.8 |============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 199.20 |============================================ LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 43.13 |============================================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Seek Random Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 66.43 |============================================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Delete Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 185.16 |============================================ LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 17.9 |============================================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 197.09 |============================================ SQLite 3.30.1 Threads / Copies: 1 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3.856 |============================================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1765124 |=========================================== BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8033 |============================================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 390911 |============================================ Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.30880977 |======================================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 0.00306402 |======================================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1621.2 |============================================ Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 180.27 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11205 |============================================= 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 . 0.089 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1637 |============================================== 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 . 0.611 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 224853 |============================================ 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 . 0.223 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 223616 |============================================ 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 . 228526 |============================================ 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 . 1.094 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 3388 |============================================== 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 . 14.76 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9885 |============================================== 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 . 2348 |============================================== 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 . 42.59 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1049 |============================================== 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 . 239.39 |============================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1351 |============================================== 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 . 0.740 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 197259 |============================================ 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 . 0.254 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 9607 |============================================== 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 . 187792 |============================================ 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 . 183317 |============================================ 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 . 1.364 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13837 |============================================= 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 . 3.614 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1141 |============================================== 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 . 0.877 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 191155 |============================================ 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 . 0.262 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 538 |=============================================== 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 . 1.859 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13882 |============================================= 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 . 7.205 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13247 |============================================= 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 . 18.88 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 180629 |============================================ 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 . 0.554 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 177712 |============================================ 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 . 1.407 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2499 |============================================== 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 . 20.11 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 289 |=============================================== 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 . 3.460 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8827 |============================================== 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 . 5.666 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2524 |============================================== 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 . 39.78 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2991 |============================================== 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 . 83.60 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11428 |============================================= 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 . 8.752 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 11879 |============================================= 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 . 21.07 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1290 |============================================== 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 . 38.91 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1396 |============================================== 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 . 72.09 |============================================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1379 |============================================== 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 . 182.08 |============================================ SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 156.64 |============================================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 1110152.76 |======================================== Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Reads Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 70112 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 78944 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Mixed 1:1 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 65621 |============================================= Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Mixed 1:3 Op/s > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 65286 |============================================= NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13673.05 |========================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 206130 |============================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 31 |================================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 4878 |============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 206 |=============================================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 22437 |============================================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 177 |=============================================== Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 13678.27 |========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 200 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 21208.97 |========================================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 8440.46 |=========================================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 102835 |============================================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 2.844 |============================================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 0 . 12.21 |============================================= 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 . 854178.4 |========================================== 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 . 880283.7 |========================================== 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 . 884266.8 |==========================================