centos79-0729-311 VMware testing on CentOS 7.9.2009.0729.311 via the Phoronix Test Suite. Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3: Processor: 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 (3 Cores), Motherboard: Intel 440BX (6.00 BIOS), Chipset: Intel 440BX/ZX/DX, Memory: 1 x 4096 MB DRAM, Disk: 223GB Virtual disk + 84GB Virtual disk, Graphics: VMware SVGA II, Network: VMware VMXNET3 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: 1176x885, System Layer: VMware LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Hot Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.038 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.2 |=============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1242.11 |=========================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 26.0 |============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.385 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 26.0 |============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.378 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.014 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Seek Random Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2.027 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Delete Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.212 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 32.3 |============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 6.773 |============================= SQLite 3.30.1 Threads / Copies: 1 Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 25.36 |============================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 551792 |============================ BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 914 |=============================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 63863 |============================= Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.16846751 |======================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.00203454 |======================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 293.5 |============================= Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 140.28 |============================ MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 1 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3311 |============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 4 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1700 |============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 8 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1508 |============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 16 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 911 |=============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 32 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 665 |=============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 64 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 331 |=============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 128 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 164 |=============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 256 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 134 |=============================== MariaDB 10.5.2 Clients: 512 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 57 |================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 19189 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.052 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 614 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.741 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 35794 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.397 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 32715 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3.058 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 23879 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 10.47 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 669 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 78.05 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 15612 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.064 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 563 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 183.43 |============================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 360 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 704.37 |============================ PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 828 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.208 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 29412 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.702 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 693 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.489 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 24585 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 4.076 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 20952 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 11.98 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3418 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 14.85 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 353 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3.170 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 11931 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 4.843 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 172804.04 |========================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3636 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 27.50 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3102 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 80.67 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 14293 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 7.050 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 12568 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 19.94 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2980 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 17.02 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 306288.86 |========================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2670345.98 |======================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2724 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 37.20 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2681 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 93.28 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 5486092.35 |======================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 17977605.17 |======================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 5178431.63 |======================== PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 10227754.06 |======================= PostgreSQL pgbench 13.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 43300925.73 |======================= SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 112.61 |============================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1283807.57 |======================== Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8936 |============================== NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 26291.85 |========================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 4443 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 227 |=============================== Apache Benchmark 2.4.29 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 16252.18 |========================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 200 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 9425.00 |=========================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 9612.35 |=========================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 170847 |============================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.547 |============================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 7.330 |============================= InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 4 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 408635.4 |========================== InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 64 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 402573.7 |========================== InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 1024 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 5354.3 |============================