I want to make these two points right out of the gate:
Like me. On January 21, 2015, Oracle announced the X5 generation of Exadata. I spent some time studying the datasheets from this product family and also compared the information to prior generations of Exadata namely the X3 and X4. Yesterday I graphed some of the datasheet numbers from these Exadata products and tweeted the graphs. I’m sorry to report that two of the graphs were faulty–the result of hasty cut and paste. This post will clear up the mistakes but I owe an apology to Oracle for incorrectly graphing their datasheet information. Everyone makes mistakes. I fess up when I do. I am posting the fixed slides but will link to the deprecated slides at the end of this post.
Wouldn’t IT be a more enjoyable industry if certain IT vendors stepped up and admitted when they’ve made little, tiny mistakes like the one I’m blogging about here? In fact, wouldn’t it be wonderful if some of the exceedingly gruesome mistakes certain IT vendors make would result in a little soul-searching and confession? Yes. It would be really nice! But it’ll never happen–well, not for certain IT companies anyway. Enough of that. I’ll move on to the meat of this post. The rest of this article covers:
The following chart shows how Oracle has evolved Exadata from the X3 to the X5 EF model with regard to IOPS capability. As per Oracle’s datasheets on the matter these are, of course, SQL-driven IOPS. Oracle would likely show you this chart and nothing else. Why? Because it shows favorable, generational progress in IOPS capability. A quick glance shows that read IOPS improved just shy of 3x and write IOPS capability improved over 4x from the X3 to X5 product releases. These are good numbers. I should point out that the X3 and X4 numbers are the datasheet citations for 100% cached data in Exadata Smart Flash Cache. These models had 4 Exadata Smart Flash Cache PCIe cards in each storage server (aka, cell). The X5 numbers I’m focused on reflect the performance of the all-new Extreme Flash (EF) X5 model. It seems Oracle has started to investigate the value of all-flash technology and, indeed, the X5 EF is the top-dog in the Exadata line-up. For this reason I choose to graph X5 EF data as opposed to the more pedestrian High Capacity model which has 12 4TB SATA drives fronted with PCI Flash cards (4 per storage server). https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 1000w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 150w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 300w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 768w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /> The tweets I hastily posted yesterday with the faulty data points aimed to normalize these performance numbers to important factors such as host CPU, SSD count and Exadata Storage Server Software licensing costs. The following set of charts are the error-free versions of the tweeted charts.
Oracle’s IOPS performance citations are based on SQL-driven workloads. This can be seen in every Exadata datasheet. All Exadata datasheets for generations prior to X4 clearly stated that Exadata IOPS are limited by host CPU. That is a very important fact to understand because SQL-driven IOPS is a host metric no matter what your storage is.
Indeed, anyone who studies Oracle Database with SLOB knows how all of that works. SQL-driven IOPS requires host CPU. Sadly, however, Oracle ceased stating the fact that IOPS are host-CPU bound in Exadata as of the advent of the X4 product family. I presume Oracle stopped correctly stating the factual correlation between host CPU and SQL-driven IOPS for only the most honorable of reasons with the best of customers’ intentions in mind.
In case anyone should doubt my assertion that Oracle historically associated Exadata IOPS limitations with host CPU I submit the following screen shot of the pertinent section of the X3 datasheet: https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/x3-datasheet-truth.jpg?... 998w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/x3-datasheet-truth.jpg?... 150w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/x3-datasheet-truth.jpg?... 300w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/x3-datasheet-truth.jpg?... 768w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /> Now that the established relationship between SQL-driven IOPS and host CPU has been demystified, I’ll offer the following chart which normalizes IOPS to host CPU core count: https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 1000w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 150w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 300w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 768w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /> I think the data speaks for itself but I’ll add some commentary. Where Exadata is concerned, Oracle gives no choice of host CPU to customers. If you adopt Exadata you will be forced to take the top-bin Xeon SKU with the most cores offered in the respective Intel CPU family. For example, the X3 product used 8-core Sandy Bridge Xeons. The X4 used 12-core Ivy Bridge Xeons and finally the X5 uses 18-core Haswell Xeons. In each of these CPU families there are other processors of varying core counts at the same TDP. For example, the Exadata X5 processor is the E5-2699v3 which is a 145w 18-core part. In the same line of Xeons there is also a 145w 14c part (E5-2697v3) but that is not an option to Exadata customers.
All of this is important since Oracle customers must license Oracle Database software by the host CPU core. The chart shows us that read IOPS per core from X3 to X4 improved 18% but from X4 to X5 we see only a 3.6% increase. The chart also shows that write IOPS/core peaked at X4 and has actually dropped some 9% in the X5 product. These important trends suggest Oracle’s balance between storage plumbing and I/O bandwidth in the Storage Servers is not keeping up with the rate at which Intel is packing cores into the Xeon EP family of CPUs. The nugget of truth that is missing here is whether the 145w 14-core E5-2697v3 might in fact be able to improve this IOPS/core ratio. While such information would be quite beneficial to Exadata-minded customers, the 22% drop in expensive Oracle Database software in such an 18c versus 14c scenario is not beneficial to Oracle–especially not while Oracle is struggling to subsidize its languishing hardware business with gains from traditional software.
Oracle uses their own branded Flash cards in all of the X3 through X5 products. While it may seem like an implementation detail, some technicians consider it important to scrutinize how well Oracle leverages their own components in their Engineered Systems. In fact, some customers expect that adding significant amounts of important performance components, like Flash cards, should pay commensurate dividends. So, before you let your eyes drift to the following graph please be reminded that X3 and X4 products came with 4 Gen3 PCI Flash Cards per Exadata Storage Server whereas X5 is fit with 8 NVMe flash cards. And now, feel free to take a gander at how well Exadata architecture leverages a 100% increase in Flash componentry: https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 1000w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 150w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 300w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 768w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /> This chart helps us visualize the facts sort of hidden in the datasheet information. From Exadata X3 to Exadata X4 Oracle improved IOPS per Flash device by just shy of 100% for both read and write IOPS. On the other hand, Exadata X5 exhibits nearly flat (5%) write IOPS and a troubling drop in read IOPS per SSD device of 22%. Now, all I can do is share the facts. I cannot change people’s belief system–this I know. That said, I can’t imagine how anyone can spin a per-SSD drop of 22%–especially considering the NVMe SSD product is so significantly faster than the X4 PCIe Flash card. By significant I mean the NVMe SSD used in the X5 model is rated at 260,000 random 8KB IOPS whereas the X4 PCIe Flash card was only rated at 160,000 8KB read IOPS. So X5 has double the SSDs–each of which is rated at 63% more IOPS capacity–than the X4 yet IOPS per SSD dropped 22% from the X4 to the X5. That means an architectural imbalance–somewhere. However, since Exadata is a completely closed system you are on your own to find out why doubling resources doesn’t double your performance. All of that might sound like taking shots at implementation details. If that seems like the case then the next section of this article might be of interest.
As I wrote earlier in this article, both Exadata X3 and Exadata X4 used PCIe Flash cards for accelerating IOPS. Each X3 and X4 Exadata Storage Server came with 12 hard disk drives and 4 PCIe Flash cards. Oracle licenses Exadata Storage Server Software by the hard drive in X3/X4 and by the NVMe SSD in the X5 EF model. To that end the license “basis” is 12 units for X3/X5 and 8 for X5. Already readers are breathing a sigh of relief because less license basis must surely mean less total license cost. Surely Not! Exadata X3 and X4 list price for Exadata Storage Server software was $10,000 per disk drive for an extended price of $120,000 per storage server. The X5 EF model, on the other hand, prices Exadata Storage Server Software at $20,000 per NVMe SSD for an extended price of $160,000 per Exadata Storage Server. With these values in mind feel free to direct your attention to the following chart which graphs the IOPS per Exadata Storage Server Software list price (IOPS/license$$). https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 1000w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 150w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 300w, https://kevinclosson.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/exadata-evolution-iops-... 768w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /> The trend in the X3 to X4 timeframe was a doubling of write IOPS/license$$ and just short of a 100% improvement in read IOPS/license$$. In stark contrast, however, the X5 EF product delivers only a 57% increase in write IOPS/license$$ and a troubling, tiny, 17% increase in read IOPS/license$$. Remember, X5 has 100% more SSD componentry when compared to the X3 and X4 products.
No summary needed. At least I don’t think so.
As promised, I’ve left links to the faulty graphs I tweeted here: Faulty / Deleted Tweet Graph of Exadata IOPS/SSD: http://wp.me/a21zc-1ek Faulty / Deleted Tweet Graph of Exadata IOPS/license$$: http://wp.me/a21zc-1ej
Exadata X3-2 datasheet: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/engineered-systems/exadata/exadata-dbmachine-x3-2-ds-1855384.pdf Exadata X4-2 datasheet: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/exadata/exadata-dbmachine-x4-2-ds-2076448.pdf Exadata X5-2 datasheet: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/exadata/exadata-x5-2-ds-2406241.pdf X4 SSD info: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/storage/flash-storage/f80/overview/index.html X5 SSD info: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E54943_01/html/E54944/gokdw.html#scrolltoc Engineered Systems Price List: http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/exadata-pricelist-070598.pdf , http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/prices/7600020944pl_oracle.pdf
Filed under: oracle