PI 7.1 Benchmark results

Hi,
now that PI 7.1 GA is getting nearer it would be interesting to see some real life benchmark results around performance when compared to PI 7.0 or XI 3.0.
Has anyone had the opportunity to run any as of yet or planning to do so? Would be very interested to see where and to what extent the much promoted improvements have increased the performance and be able to put these numbers in front of customers who are currently struggling with performance related issues on previous versions or who are not yet committed to PI due to uncertainty regarding the performance.
I've tried to search in the SDN for PI 7.1 benchmark results, but if such benchmarking exists I didn't manage to find it (if you have a link, please post it as a reply).
Cheers
Kalle

Hi,
/people/udo.paltzer/blog/2007/04/26/new-sap-netweaver-process-integration-release-planned-for-2007
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/304335f7-f33c-2a10-ae80-9c9ffdc86415
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/00ffdb4d-e869-2a10-7688-891d7eea1b12
Regards
Agasthuri Doss

Similar Messages

LiveCycle 8.2 benchmarking results?

1. Are there any benchmarking results for Livecycle 8.2 on Microsoft Windows Server(s)?
In particular for PDF Generation operations.
2. Assembler Service Documentaion states:
The Assembler service can assemble documents from one or more source documents. It supports several options for specifying source documents. Beginning with LiveCycle ES 8.2, the non-PDF documents can used as PDF source documents. Assembler service automatically converts such documents to PDF documents. The Assembler service performs the conversion by using the Generate PDF service. The PDFGenerationSettings element specifies conversion parameters.
Q2) What fraction of time is spent in conversion and merging, respectively?
Q3) What is an optimum workload for the assembler operation that does convert+merge?
Q4) What are the limits for LiveCycle 8.2 in terms of:
- max number of docs that can be converted and merged at one time
- max total size of docs to be converted and merged at one time
Thank you

Is there any particular reason why you are asking this in the Flash Player forum?

IMac i7 and i5 Benchmark results on Geekbench

Here are some recent Benchmark results of the new iMacs :
Core i7 : http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=iMac+i7&commit=Search
core i5 : http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5&commit=Search
And the C2D High end @3.33 Ghz : http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183324
The results may vary on your RAM, but it looks really good
The i7 average is about 45% better than the C2D, Good News !
And we can see that the difference between the i5 and i7 still remains the same, about 7-8%.
Enjoy your iMacs
Message was edited by: Floriferous
Message was edited by: Floriferous

I suspect in 2010, using multi-threading, Grand Central multi-cores, and even OpenCL GPU assist will help differentiate products. Those productivity apps (or utilities and games) that do support any or all new functionality will become more desirable than those that do not. This is clearly the future-proofing advantage that people see in buying the 2.7 GHz and 2.8 GHz quad core machines now; they may not be faster today than 3 GHz or 3.3 GHz Core 2 Duo in some things, but tomorrow is another story. Will be nice when Apple's Pro Apps such as Final Cut or even Aperture and Adobe CS's flagship products like Photoshop are tuned for these quad processor configurations. With six-core desktop processors on the horizon, even more pressure on vendors to do it right.

Slow System Performance! [With Benchmark Results]

Hello,
I've a MacBook Pro (mid 2011) 15" model with the following configuration:
Core i7 2.3 GHz
8GB RAM
256GB SSD
OS X Lion 10.7.2
(No 3rd party software installed expect GeekBench tool)
I ran the GeekBench tool and result is available here: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/498196
I primarily suspect SSD, since it's performance is not up to the mark. I would appreciate if anyone can provide me more info based on the SSD performance for the above result (link.)
Thank you!

I just ran X-Bench tool and compared it to Anandtech benchmark results (with the same SSD and tool types) and the screenshots are provided below:

Poor Benchmark results - WHY PLEASE??

Hi,
Can anyone help me with why I get a poor set of 3D Mark 2001se (330) results:7250 ???
The first purchase was a Nvidia GF4 Ti4200 XFX 128mb DDR. I initially tried this in my ECS K7S5A machine, and the benchmark result was just off 9000. Not Bad!
Then I purchase a MSI K7N2G-ILSR. I also upgrade the CPU from 1.4 T/Bird to 2.4XP
I spend weeks trying to get the VGA Drivers to install along with the nForce2 system drivers.
I've now updated the bios to V1.2, this I think was the main problem with the GF4. Although, when installing VGA and System drivers, I have to select each item from the device manager and individually update drivers. I wonder if the MOBO VGA need to be disabled somehow???
System Specs:
MSI K7N2G-ILSR
AMD Athlon XP PR2400+ Thoroughbred
Nvidia GF4 Ti4200 XFX 128MB DDR
512MB 333DDR (Nanya)
80GB WD Caviar (partitioned 20/10/50)
550W Q-tec PSU (I know - cheap !!!)
Volcano 9 HSF (Antec Silver Thermal Compound)
Win XP-PRO (SP.1)
Any help would be much appreciated!!
Markone.

Markone,
Update the motherboard and Vid card to the latest nVidia Drivers from the nVidia website.
Set the CPU to RAM Ratio to 1:1.
Tweak the drivers and see what scores you get.
Good Luck,
Richard

BENCHMARK RESULTS OF 26 POPULAR SMART PHONES RANKED!!!

Here are the benchmark results of many 26 popular smartphones and how they compare using four major benchmark software packages (Geekbench, SunSpider, BrowserMark, and GL Benchmark 2.1).
Here is a link to the article with the test results (from 4 different benchmarks)….a very eye opening read:
http://www.redmondpie.com/iphone-4s-cpu-clocked-at-800mhz-is-73-faster-than-iphone-4-twice-as-fast-as-galaxy-s-ii-and-all-other-android-phones/

Hi Luca,
test and production system are nearly identicall (same OS, same HW Plattform, same software version, same release)
you're using external tables. Are the speed of these drives are identically?
have you analyzed the schema with the same statement? Could you send me the statement?
have you system statistics?
have you testet the statement in an environment which is nearly like the production? concurrent user etc.
Could you send me the top 5 wait events from the statspack report.
Are the data from production and test identical? No data changed. No Index drop? No additional Index? All tables and indexes are analyzed
Regards
Marc

Benchmark results for WLS

Are there any public benchmark results available for WLS ? I have a customer who wants to see how WLS scales. They want to see performance and benchmark results.
Can you PLEASE send me any reliable benchmark results.
Thank a million.

Michael,
I actually need some data to analyze. Please advise if BEA has anything like that.
Thanks
KK
"Jim Baiter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
But is there an actual benchmark study to refer to. I could
use this for some sizing of estimates - I don't need marketing
collateral.
"Michael Girdley" <[email protected]> wrote:
We scale very well. Our largest deployments number between 60-70+ CPUs:
http://www.bea.com/press/releases/2000/1004_planet_project_wls.html
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Girdley
BEA Systems Inc
"Kubo Kushi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:39f797e8$[email protected]..
Are there any public benchmark results available for WLS ? I have
a
customer who wants to see how WLS scales. They want to see performanceand
benchmark results.
Can you PLEASE send me any reliable benchmark results.
Thank a million.

BenchMarking Results

Do we have any Benchmarking results in Times ten? if yes can you share them please

Bonnie,
Have you found out how to integrate and deploy SPECjAppServer2002 on WLS 8.x?
- Debby

Iozone website benchmark results on Xserve RAID

Hi,
I'd like to try and find out how the Apple RAID was configured for the
iozone benchmark. The results of the benchmark are here:
http://www.iozone.org/src/current/Xserver.xls
I asked the question directly to iozone and the answer was that the
benchmark was run in the Apple booth at some tradeshow/conference.
The booth guys let the iozone guys run the benchmark there.
The write results in the iozone benchmark are about 2.5 times better than
the write results we are getting so I'd like to try and figure out how it was
configured.
I'm going to be using the Apple RAID in an intensive write database
application running MySQL. Here's some info on my setup:
My system is a Sun v40 4xOpteron with 8Gig of RAM. I'm running
Solaris 10 release 03/05.
The apple RAID has all 14 disks and is fibre connected. The disks
are setup so that the mirroring is done in the Apple RAID. This produces
a bunch of LUNs. These are all striped together at the OS level, so
the setup is RAID 10. Note that this version of the OS only supports
a LUN size of 2TB max.
Thanks for any help,
Mike
Mac OS X (10.4.6) Xserve RAID

The last tab in the spreadsheet tells you how the RAID was configured, namely RAID 5 128 stripes.
From what I recall when I ran iozone against one of my XServe RAIDs, their figures came out a little higher than mine, but not dramatically. I'll see if I can find the data dumps for comparison.
In the meantime I would look at how you're configuring the RAID. publishing a series of mirrors and using striping at the host level seems less-than-ideal. You're forcing the XServe RAID to write the data twice on each controller, as well as requiring the OS to manage which LUNs it's writing to.
(remember, RAID 1 write performance is lower than other RAID levels)
You would be better off running either RAID 0+1 (striping on the XServe RAID with each side mirrored by the server), or RAID 5, leaving everything up to the XServe RAID - the XServe RAID's performance at RAID 5 is not significantly lower than RAID 0 and it eliminates any overhead on the server side.
If it wasn't for the volume size limitation in Solaris I would recommend RAID 50 over 10 (RAID 5 on the XServe RAID, striped on the host) but that would likely exceed the 2TB volume limit.
Other things to check are the write caches on the drive (use only if you're in a stable power environment).

Benchmark Results for CS4, attn. Bill Gehrke

Bill (and others interested),
I have now tweaked my system a bit and done some simple benchmarking to see if I did it right. There is not yet a PPBM+ benchmark available to see how this system fares in comparison to others, but if you make it available for CS4, Bill, I will submit the data.
Anyway, here are the results for the time being:
b PassMark 7.0: 4338,1 (only second place due to Vista 64, which adds a 5-10% performance penalty in comparison to XP-32).
b Cinebench R10: 5670 single CPU / 22338 multi CPU / 5154 OpenGL.
b HDTach 3.0.4 long (32 MB): Single disk burst 233 / Avg 99, 2 disk raid0 burst 4275 / Avg 177, 8 disk raid30 burst 1045 / Avg 671.
This is a budget system with i7-920 @ 4.0 GHz, 12 GB RAM, ATI 4870 video, 150 GB boot Velociraptor, 2 TB Raid0 for pagefile/scratch, 2 x single disk 1 TB for audio, stock footage and export, and 8 TB Raid30 for media (Areca-ARC 1680iX-12 with 2 GB cache and BBM) plus 2 BR burners.
Bill, how are you coming along on the PPBM+ CS4 version?

Agreed up to a point. The raid controller, cache memory and BBM, which I would have wanted for any system, be it low budget, mid range or high budget, takes out an enormous heap. I could have gotten four i7 CPU's for that. If you add the disks as well, yes, it does get expensive. However, that investment may well outlive several generations of mobo's and CPU's and gives me your much coveted RAID30 array of effectively 6 TB (8 TB raw) and some more.
In the old days, people used to say that the system you wanted is around $ 5K. Nowadays when you want top-of-the-bill $ 5K is not enough; that is IMO a high budget system. A low budget system IMO at least for NLE is somewhere around $ 1-2K and medium is around the $ 2-4K bracket and anything higher than that is top material. That leaves my system in the medium bracket, nice, but not top-of-the-bill.

Benchmark Results BEA/JBOSS for Asynchronous Apps

Hi people,
here are results for the messaging benchmarks, for BEA and JBoss.
First, a little description of the scenario.
We decided for this simple scenario to benchmark :
PostingClient posts to Topic1.
MDB1 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic1, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic2.
MDB2 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic3.
MDB3 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic4.
MDB4 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic1.
and when the message is posted to topic1, MDB1 regets the message.
There is another listener on topic1 --> MonitoringClient.
MonitoringClient gets the messages arriving there, and reports the times the
message took between the 4 MDBs.
Summary : the messages sent into the EJB Server remain in there, and make
loops from MDB1 to MDB4 and back again, endlessly.
Hardware : Pentium II, 400 Mhz, 256 Megs of RAM.
OS : Windows NT4
VM : Sun 1.3
Benchmark Testing Series :
Weblogic Benchmarks:
VM : 64MB heapsize.
Configurations :
1) max-beans-in-free-pool : 50 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 6 (in the
entries in weblogic-ejb-jar.xml, for each of the 4 message beans)
2) max-beans-in-free-pool : 500 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 62
3) max-beans-in-free-pool : 2000 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 250
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximum time
waiting for crash 30 minutess)
On JBoss :
VM: 64MB heapsize.
Configurations:
(in jboss.xml)
1) container-invoker : maximumsize 50,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 50 minimumsize 6
2) container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 62
3) the maximum jboss could handle even with 128mb ram for the heapsize of
the VM was :
container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 100
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximum time
waiting for crash 30 minutes)
Results for Weblogic :
this server is very fast and stable. With 5000 Messages, we had a crash at
configuration 1, at 1800 Messages sent.
With configuration 2, it crashed at 3300, and with configuration 3 we had a
crash as early as with 500 messages - but that was due to the low heapsize
of the VM.
When we raised the heapsize to 128Megs, the server ran good with 10000
messages.
Sending times : we mesaured the times needed for a message to be sent
between to consecutive MDBs - for weblogic it was all around 0,1 secs.
At 10000 messages, average sending time was 1,4 seconds.
For 5000 messages, even with config 3, we had 0,8 seconds.
All other results were very acceptable, average times of 0.01 to 0.2.
If you need any more details, contact me.
JBoss :
config 3,2 : 3 seconds average with 50 messages.
Well, to be very honest : perhaps I m doing something fundamentally wrong,
and I dont know exactly what strategy JBoss is pursuing in its kind of
message delivery, but JBoss crashed at every config with 500 messages.
Average sending times at 50 messages were 3 seconds, regardless of the
configuration used, the parameters showed little or no effect.
I know that these parameters should tune throughput, I know, and I know that
with 4 topics and 4 MDBs, we are not simulating a true asynchrnously
designed application, meaning : with asynchronous components only.
But regardless of the throughput, no one wants to wait 12 seconds for a
response.
Even with 30 messages in the system, the average was 2 seconds, meaning 8
seconds in total to wait for a response : and this with only 4 asynchronous
components.
At 10 messages, we got average times of 0,7 seconds - meaning a response
time of 3 seconds in total, which could be acceptable.
It is also strange that weblogic showed significant CPU usage when
increasing the JMS load, while JBoss stayed very happy with around 10%, not
caring about any optimization in speed, it seems.
Have we forgotten any parameters to SPEED up sending times, message
delivery, or MDB invocation for JBoss ?
I am really wondering.
For precise details, contact me.
Best regards, Jubin Zawar

Hi Jubin,
Great Job done by you. Can have the results in Detail. It would be very help
full for me, I am working on something to load test my app though not ready
right now it will be soon ready.
Regards
LJS Narayana
"Jubin Zawar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi people,
here are results for the messaging benchmarks, for BEA and JBoss.
First, a little description of the scenario.
We decided for this simple scenario to benchmark :
PostingClient posts to Topic1.
MDB1 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic1, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic2.
MDB2 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic3.
MDB3 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic4.
MDB4 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic1.
and when the message is posted to topic1, MDB1 regets the message.
There is another listener on topic1 --> MonitoringClient.
MonitoringClient gets the messages arriving there, and reports the timesthe
message took between the 4 MDBs.
Summary : the messages sent into the EJB Server remain in there, and make
loops from MDB1 to MDB4 and back again, endlessly.
Hardware : Pentium II, 400 Mhz, 256 Megs of RAM.
OS : Windows NT4
VM : Sun 1.3
Benchmark Testing Series :
Weblogic Benchmarks:
VM : 64MB heapsize.
Configurations :
1) max-beans-in-free-pool : 50 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 6 (inthe
entries in weblogic-ejb-jar.xml, for each of the 4 message beans)
2) max-beans-in-free-pool : 500 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 62
3) max-beans-in-free-pool : 2000 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 250
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximumtime
waiting for crash 30 minutess)
On JBoss :
VM: 64MB heapsize.
Configurations:
(in jboss.xml)
1) container-invoker : maximumsize 50,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 50 minimumsize 6
2) container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 62
3) the maximum jboss could handle even with 128mb ram for the heapsize of
the VM was :
container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 100
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximumtime
waiting for crash 30 minutes)
Results for Weblogic :
this server is very fast and stable. With 5000 Messages, we had a crash at
configuration 1, at 1800 Messages sent.
With configuration 2, it crashed at 3300, and with configuration 3 we hada
crash as early as with 500 messages - but that was due to the low heapsize
of the VM.
When we raised the heapsize to 128Megs, the server ran good with 10000
messages.
Sending times : we mesaured the times needed for a message to be sent
between to consecutive MDBs - for weblogic it was all around 0,1 secs.
At 10000 messages, average sending time was 1,4 seconds.
For 5000 messages, even with config 3, we had 0,8 seconds.
All other results were very acceptable, average times of 0.01 to 0.2.
If you need any more details, contact me.
JBoss :
config 3,2 : 3 seconds average with 50 messages.
Well, to be very honest : perhaps I m doing something fundamentally wrong,
and I dont know exactly what strategy JBoss is pursuing in its kind of
message delivery, but JBoss crashed at every config with 500 messages.
Average sending times at 50 messages were 3 seconds, regardless of the
configuration used, the parameters showed little or no effect.
I know that these parameters should tune throughput, I know, and I knowthat
with 4 topics and 4 MDBs, we are not simulating a true asynchrnously
designed application, meaning : with asynchronous components only.
But regardless of the throughput, no one wants to wait 12 seconds for a
response.
Even with 30 messages in the system, the average was 2 seconds, meaning 8
seconds in total to wait for a response : and this with only 4asynchronous
components.
At 10 messages, we got average times of 0,7 seconds - meaning a response
time of 3 seconds in total, which could be acceptable.
It is also strange that weblogic showed significant CPU usage when
increasing the JMS load, while JBoss stayed very happy with around 10%,not
caring about any optimization in speed, it seems.
Have we forgotten any parameters to SPEED up sending times, message
delivery, or MDB invocation for JBoss ?
I am really wondering.
For precise details, contact me.
Best regards, Jubin Zawar

Strange benchmark result need some explanation

I was testing the efficiency of the transpose function in Labview so I did a simple test setup starting with by using a constant as source. At some time I changed the constant to a control, and the processing time dropped from about 4200 msec to a number between 1 and 2 msec. I could reproduce the result at every run. Why is it like this?
I include my test VI in 8.0
Edit: I was using Labview 8.6 for this test, and Could not see any major differences in buffer allocations
Message Edited by Coq Rouge on 07-29-2009 10:51 AM
Besides which, my opinion is that Express VIs Carthage must be destroyed deleted
(Sorry no Labview "brag list" so far)
Attachments:
transpose_test.vi ‏196 KB

Thank you for your answer Rolf. And to be honest this behavior do not cause any problem for me. I wanted to see if the transpose array could cause any problem for me regarding timing. The transpose array function is more than fast for my amount of data(2x20000 dbl) . But in the future, if I need an big array constant. I will test and see if a control set to default values and hidden, perform better.
Besides which, my opinion is that Express VIs Carthage must be destroyed deleted
(Sorry no Labview "brag list" so far)

SiSoft Sandra Cache & Memory Benchmark Results - Normal?

Do these results look pretty typical for my system?
MSI K8T Neo-FSR
AMD Athlon 64 3000+
512MB PC3200 DDR400

Yeaaaaah, I just realized that. I thought it would upload automatically to the forums. Dinnertime right now anyways. I'll get that pic up in a bit.
Ok, ok. here we go.

Anyone have Benchmark results for an older MBP?

I am thinking about ditching my 17" MBP ( 2.13 - 2GB - 120GB) for a newer model.
I am thinking about a fully tweaked 13" MBP (8GB, SSD, etc) or a built MBA.
How does the older models compare to the newer ones? Is there a score that can tell the difference, or is it just based on perception at this point?

Check this out: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?page=2979&q=macbook+pro

What are Quake 4, Motion 3 and call of Duty 4 with respect to benchmarks?

I am trying to decide which new iMac to buy and don't really understand exactly what the benchmark results mean. What are these three tests and how should I interpret them with regard to the type of use my iMac will be for, i.e video and photo editing, Logic Express for music, internet, and maybe iWork?
I do not play computer games at all, nor will I be doing 3-D graphic work.
My partner has just bought the new 20" iMac which is gorgeous but I want the 24" screen.

+"Does a better frame rate equal better video and photo viewing performance in general, i.e, not just for gaming?"+
No it doesn't, gaming is the most popular application for upgrading graphics cards however if you are into any type of 3D graphics such as CAD/CAM software or rendering graphics then it makes sense.
The only other reason for upgrading the video is for possible future needs. If you are pretty certain you won't be doing anything that is 3D intensive the base graphics should be fine. For your needs today I would recommend either the 2.93 GHz model with either the NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB or the NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512MB.
Regards,
Roger

PI 7.1 Benchmark results

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for