[ftmjr]

Does anyone have experience in working with... Sybase ASE 12.5.4 and UltraSPARC IV processors (4 total), Solaris 10, Sun Fire V890?

We want to know if the UltraSPARC IV is officially considered "dual core".

If so, we want to know if Sybase ASE 12.5.4 will treat 4 processors as 8. Meaning that we would use the sp_configure "number of engines at startup" and sp_configure "max online engines" and set them to 8.

What are your thoughts?

Thank you.

[pdreyer]

Originally Posted by ftmjr

We want to know if the UltraSPARC IV is officially considered "dual core".

You should really ask SUN but the way I see it

No, the UltraSPARC IV is duel threaded

The UltraSPARC IV+ processor is duel core that supports two simultaneous threads as a result of two independent cores.
The UltraSPARC IV+ offers up to five times the performance of UltraSPARC III servers and up to double increased performance over UltraSPARC IV servers in the same footprint.

Originally Posted by ftmjr

we want to know if Sybase ASE 12.5.4 will treat 4 processors as 8

Yes it will but unlike duel core, you won't see the same performance as 8 CPUs.

FYI: I've been running 16 engines on a V890 with 8 x UltraSPARC IV+ processors since 2006 with no problems.

[ftmjr]

Below is another interesting newsgroup thread... The guy claims to be from Sun.

http://www.dbmonster.com/Uwe/Forum.a...-UltraSPARC-IV

If they are correct, it's pretty clear that UltraSPARC IV is a "dual-core". Not sure why Sun chose to use the words... "dual-thread" instead of "dual-core". We hope to investigate this further to better understand. Does your Paris Sybase Team have experience using the UltraSPARC IV?

Please also refer to the following white papers and URLs that support that UltraSPARC IV is a dual-core ("two sets of circuitry, also called cores").

================================================== ========


http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/...throughput.pdf


UltraSPARC IV incorporates two full sets of UltraSPARC III logic on the same
processor chip in speeds up to 1.35 GHz. That combination offers the potential for a near doubling of throughput by allowing two instruction streams, also called threads, to be executed simultaneously. However, implementing two full sets of circuitry on the same processor chip does present some challenges. Since the physical packaging retains essentially the same number of pins connecting the processor chip to the system board, the two sets of circuitry, also called cores, share the same bus to external cache and memory. Depending upon the application workload, the bus-sharing and splitting of the cache between the dual cores can limit the throughput to slightly less than twice that of UltraSPARC III.


================================================== ========

UltraSPARC IV White Paper:
http://www.sun.com/processors/whitep...whitepaper.pdf

UltraSPARC T1 White Paper (different generation, but has a good explanation of the UltraSPARC series / technologies):
http://www.sun.com/processors/whitep...whitepaper.pdf

Discussion Thread:
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups...4-09/2199.html

================================================== ========

What do you think?

[pdreyer]

Interesting pdf document by Ideas International (ideas_throughput.pdf) that indicate that both are duel core but different design.

Although the processor performance of the UltraSPARC IV+ (1.5 GHz) is only 11% faster than the UltraSPARC IV (1.35 GHz ) the UltraSPARC IV+ seem to outperform it by a factor of 1.5 to 2.5 depending on the application.

The question then remains why SUN refers to one as duel-treaded and the other as duel-core (is that what the different design is).

And the performance difference is repeated in the UltraSPARC T1 paper
THROUGHPUT COMPUTING
Chapter 3
Page 10

Sun Fire V490-E25K servers with UltraSPARC IV+ processors can deliver up to five times the performance of systems equipped with UltraSPARC III processors and up to twice that of systems equipped with UltraSPARC IV processors.

Any reason you decided on using the older technology?

[ftmjr]

Great to hear your feedback. I've been working on this for a couple of months now. It was only the discovery of the white papers and the UNIX discussion forum that things started to become more clear. I especially like the diagram in the UltraSPARC IV white paper. The diagram makes it very clear that we are looking at a dual-core design. I'm glad to hear that after you reviewed the documentation / URLs you came to a similar conclution.

As for why we picked the UltraSPARC IV over newer technologies (the UltraSPARC IV+ or the UltraSPARC T1)... the decision was made before I joined the company. To be 100% honest, I don't think the person that chose the hardware knew what or why they were picking it. The entire team that implemented the solution is no longer with the company or even in the country (project based only, then was handed over to us, the production support / infrastrucgture team).

So we inherited a system that was flawed in design from the start (since the "go live" implementation). This is just one of the many design flaws that we have found. What I mean by this is... an example of why this is a design flaw... we are paying for an 8 CPU license with Sybase, but Sybase is configured only to use 4 engines. Yet it seems that it should have been configured to use 8 engines. At least that is what we have been paying for for over a year now (yet only using 4). That is why we have started this dialague concerning the UltraSPARC IV. We want to know if it is safe to configure Sybase to run 8 engines, yet we only have 4 UltraSPARC IV. First is it possible and second are there any risks we need to be concerned with (i.e. starving OS or system of CPU usage)?

What do you think?

[ftmjr]

pdreyer,

Just a quick question to run by you. You mentioned that you are doing the following...

"FYI: I've been running 16 engines on a V890 with 8 x UltraSPARC IV+ processors since 2006 with no problems."

So you have configured Sybase to use 16 engines / run on all available 16 logical processors. Can we do the same with our 4 UltraSPARC IV? I mean, can we safely run 8 engines on all available 8 logical processors without starving other server resources (i.e. os resources, etc)?

In addition, internal of Sybase, is there risk of lock contention or other similar issues to adding too many processors?

What do you think?

Thanks for your help and time you are setting aside.

[ftmjr]

Below is a response that we received today from a case we
openned with Sybase...

"As long as the Operating System views each CPU as two cpus,
it is ok for ASE to assign 2 engines per CPU. In the case of
UltraSparc IV dual-core CPUs, the OS treats each CPU as two
cpus, so this is ok, with the caveat that one CPU must be
dedicated to the operating system."

"Therefore, the answer to your question is yes. Please let me
know if you have more question or I can close this case for
now. Thank you."

See reference case:
http://search.sybase.com/kbx/solvedc...umber=11161803


We are curious about a statement that was made in the below CASE / URL...

See reference case:
http://search.sybase.com/kbx/solvedc...umber=11161803

It states the following...

"the caveat that one CPU must be dedicated to the operating system."

The article was written in 2005. Is this still correct, or still the case? For example, if we have 4 UltraSPARC (8 logical processors), we can only configure Sybase to use 6 logical processors? Is this correct? Meaning that if we configure Sybase to user 8 engines, we would be starving the OS. Is this correct? What are your thoughts?

Thank you.

[ftmjr]

I noticed that if you don't have a support contract with
Sybase you cannot view cases, so I have copied and pasted
the solved case below...

http://search.sybase.com/kbx/solvedc...umber=11161803

Solved Cases
Case Number: 11161803
Open Date: 2005-08-17 22:20:59.7
Version/EBF: 1252/0
Product: Adaptive Server Enterprise
OS: Solaris
Platform: Sun Solaris SPARC

Case Description
If I upgrade to UltraSPARC IV CPU, can I count each one as
two and therefore only need four CPUs for eight Sybase
engines? Or should I still assume one engine per physical
CPUs?

Tip or Workaround
As long as the Operating System views each CPU as two cpus,
it is ok for ASE to assign 2 engines per CPU. In the case of
UltraSparc IV dual-core CPUs, the OS treats each CPU as two
cpus, so this is ok, with the caveat that one CPU must be
dedicated to the operating system.

Resolution
It is ok to have two engines per UltraSparc IV dual-core
CPU, as the operating system treats each dual core CPU as
two cpus.

Other Sources Related to Issue
TechNote

[pdreyer]

If it is a dedicated Sybase server then you can assign all virtual CPUs
Else depending on what the other work is that the server must do you'll have to leave CPU(s) for those processes.

[trvishi]

Originally Posted by ftmjr

As for why we picked the UltraSPARC IV over newer technologies (the UltraSPARC IV+ or the UltraSPARC T1)... the decision was made before I joined the company. To be 100% honest, I don't think the person that chose the hardware knew what or why they were picking it. The entire team that implemented the solution is no longer with the company or even in the country (project based only, then was handed over to us, the production support / infrastrucgture team).

Sorry I had to quote this... Theres a lot of factors on a person working on a specific project deciding on something. As much as YOU dont have any clue about sybase, the person might have been on a similar boat with limited time available (project based means time based I guess)...

You are going on the right track and and its professionally not good to banter over what has happened.. especially in IT... If you know something better, try to push your ideas...

OK.. Now my real question.

Have you tested the load of the system using sysmons etc...? Yes, you may be able to configure more engines, but is the Application designed to handle this?

The next question from a novice App developer when you proudly say we doubled the engines and the performance will be good... is... our program still runs the same amount of time !!

No hard feelings... Just sharing my experiences thats all

[ftmjr]

trvishi... I definitely take offense to your statements. I think that they are absolutely unnecessary and unprofessional. Before lecturing someone on what is "professionally not good", be kind enough to watch your own professional bering. For example, making statements like... "As much as YOU dont have any clue about sybase" is absolutely unnecessary.

To defend my statement...

"To be 100% honest, I don't think the person that chose the hardware knew what or why they were picking it."

These are not my own feelings or opinions. I never met the implementation team member(s). These are the opinions that were given to me and are a consensus among the entire management and IT team. These are opinions that were given to me upon taking on this project.

Second, your statements...

"its professionally not good to banter over what has happened.. especially in IT"

Please understand, that is my job. My job is to understand... "what has happenend". That is why I was given this project. To identify what was done wrong and fix it. This is not bantering... this is identifying what was done wrong and fixing it. For example... Paying Sybase for 8 cpu license and only using 4. Would you say that this is bantering, or identifying a issue and resolving it? This is the case we face now (paying for 8 engines, but only using 4), so I'm trying to visit all our best options. That is why this thread was created.

So if you have experience and knowledge using UltraSPARC IV and dual-core CPUs please provide the viewers of this thread with any relevent information you may be willing to share. Otherwise, please be kind not to take jabs at people just because you have an opinion.

There is a saying I have just created... It is... "Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone has knowledge or wisdom". Might need a bit brushing up... what do you think?

[trvishi]

I think Im going to unsubscribe on this thread.. But you needed that jab in my opinion mate Peace out.

[ftmjr]

-----------------------
trvishi wrote...
-----------------------
"As much as YOU dont have any clue about sybase"

-----------------------
My response to trvishi...
-----------------------
Hmm... trvishi might take a look in the mirror first, before making such a statement to a person. From trvishi conduct and answers, trvishi obviously was a reflection of his own statement.

-----------------------
In addition, I wrote...
-----------------------
"If you have experience and knowledge using UltraSPARC IV and dual-core CPUs please provide the viewers of this thread with any relevent information you may be willing to share. Otherwise, please be kind not to take jabs at people just because you have an opinion."

-----------------------
trvishi wrote...
-----------------------
"I think Im going to unsubscribe on this thread.. But you needed that jab in my opinion mate Peace out."

-----------------------
My response...
-----------------------
Based on trvishi conduct and answers, he obviously doesn't have any "experience" or "knowledge", because he has nothing valuable to share with the viewers of this thread or forum.