Shiny objects & Distractions

Yet another blog on the non-stop marketing tactics by Oracle where they attempt to deflect attention on their many product weaknesses and try to create differentiation where there is none.

This latest attempt by Oracle has them promoting the performance of Oracle 12c over SAP HANA for the SAP Business Warehouse Enhanced Mixed Workload benchmark also known as BW-EML.  Oracle promotes this claim at https://www.oracle.com/corporate/features/oracle-powers-sap.html with a whitepaper posted at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/in-memory/overview/benefits-of-dbim-for-sap-apps-2672504.html available for download as a pdf.

Oracle is known for making wild claims only supported by marketing claims and “Oracle internal tests”.  This is important to understand as these claims may entice customers to consider products that have not undergone any critical analysis.  One example is Oracle’s Exadata product. The Exadata name has become synonymous with Oracle’s family of integrated appliances that include discrete solutions: database, application  and data warehouse. The Exadata database solution  has zero published benchmarks yet the web is riddled with claims by Oracle on its superior performance over competitive offerings. Oracle is now claiming they have submitted their Oracle 12c in-memory database results to SAP for review and publishing for the BW-EML benchmark which SAP has yet to do.

It appears since SAP has chosen to not publish Oracle’s 12c result that Oracle is taking matters into its own hand to publish their BM-EML result since SAP is not. I have no knowledge if SAP is choosing to sit on the results but I do know this; the reason you see very few industry benchmarks on non-Oracle systems using Oracle database (enterprise edition) is for the same reason Oracle is accusing SAP of doing.  As part of Oracle’s end user license agreement they require any user who publishes performance results to submit the results to Oracle for review and approval.  If Oracle does not approve the result that user / vendor cannot publish it.  A good example where Oracle has limited their competition from publishing benchmark results using Oracle database is with the SAP Tier-2 Sales & Distribution benchmark.  Benchmark results are available at http://global.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/sd2tier.epx.  I checked yesterday (Sept 19th) and could not find any current results using Oracle Enterprise Edition database on any non-Oracle or non-SPARC servers (ie Fujitsu has results on their SPARC servers) since a HP result from around 2008.

Oracle is trying to convince SAP customers their 12c database product is relevant for in-memory Business Warehouse workloads. They further tout superior performance with a 2 socket X5-2 server using Intel’s Haswell E5_v3 chipset totaling 36 cores.  Oracle typically achieves higher results by throwing significantly more cores and memory than required by competitors and definitely not by innovation; whether that competition is IBM POWER or Intel.  One of Oracle’s “Go to” tactics is to mask and manipulate the details  stating things like “Our (Oracle) 8 processor beats IBM’s 8 processor by 2X”.  We saw that when they compared their SPARC T5-8 to a Power7+ 780 server. Of course, the devil is in the details and those details are this.  Oracle historically refers to their chips as sockets and  processors (ie the full chip that plugs into the motherboard socket) and this is whats used in published results.  They use these names interchangeably.  IBM tends to use socket when referring to a model of server such as “The S824 is a 2 socket server” or “The E850 is a 4 socket server”.   In almost all cases they refer to performance results using cores or processors which are used interchangeably. IBM tends to use chip or socket synonymously and cores or processors as the component that makes up that socket/chip.  Using Oracle terminology, the T5-8 system is configured with 8 processors of 16 cores each totaling totaling 128 cores.   This specific  IBM Power7+ 780 server only has 32 cores though yet Oracle chose to compare their 128 core server to it.  Why are you asking? This model of Power7+ server uses a 4 core per socket configuration.  Each server chassis of which it can scale from 1 to 4 chassis scales from 4 to 16 sockets or 16 to 64 cores.  This is how Oracle marketing claims 8 socket vs 8 socket which they publish their results.  As you can see though, they do not divulge to the reader that it is really 128 SPARC cores vs 32 Power7+ cores.  They leave it to the reader and consumer to figure this out taking no responsibility that they are intentionally trying to deceive and distort the facts.

With this Oracle 12c result for the SAP BW-EML benchmark you will note several areas of omission and possible deception. They do not publish any pricing data for using the in-memory feature. Using list price will easily run close to $200K per core and of course depends on whether a few features are chosen or not.  Oracle claims their 1 server with 36 cores beats all others by 2X.  They state in the whitepaper this one server is actually one of 8 database servers in the Exadata X5-2 appliance and not a single 2 socket 36 core standalone server. This is very important to understand as it drives up the software by a factor of 8.  There are a few ways to reduce their Oracle licensing but this is not disclosed and I would argue not likely used.  Since the server used is part of a 8 node Exadata, it would require software be licensed for 8 servers times 36 cores times the Intel licensing factor of 0.5.  This equals 144 Oracle licenses which is multiplied by the licensing cost (let’s just use $200K list price for easy math – it is what it is and is not entirely fixed) $200K which comes to a grand total of $28,800,000. Yes, that is $28.8M USD. Of course, Oracle charges an annual maintenance fee that is 22% times the license price. For this example the customer would pay $6,336,000 per year and every year.

Next, Oracle claims to have used just 1 x 36 core X5-2 server for this workload yet it also has the storage that comes with the 8 server solution. They could have just as easily used their standalone X5-2 server in their attempt to achieve these results. Furthermore, why did they not use the 2 node Oracle Database Appliance (ODA)?  It seems obvious they need the full Exadata infrastructure which heavily relies on SSD based PCIe adapters to achieve the desired performance.  The SSD heavy architecture has become the default configuration on Exadata from previous solutions which relied on high capacity but slower 10K rpm HDD as it delivers higher performance and higher margins.  Don’t forget Oracle shifts some of the database processing and subsequent cost from the DB servers to the storage servers then charge $20k per disk…yes, I said per “disk”.  Suckers line up to the left and those who have done their homework are already running Oracle workloads on IBM’s Power servers.

SAP has been clear in their roadmap.  They are moving toward an architecture developed around HANA.  I can’t blame Oracle entirely for touting their product as a viable database alternative.  IBM’s DB2 with BLU technology is a superior product to Oracle Database Enterprise Edition that runs even faster on Power8 (over SPARC & Intel) and is even less expensive.  Yet, IBM has posted an SAP HANA result running Linux on POWER8 servers for the BW-EML benchmark.  If customers wants to see how DB2 on Power8 performs, they are welcome to view the SAP Tier-2 S&D Benchmark mentioned above for results that are 2X+ greater than Intel and anywhere from 3-4X greater than SPARC per core. Customers are absolutely free to choose Oracle or DB2 for their BW workloads but if they plan to stay with SAP for the long term they are probably investigating, evaluating if not implementing HANA technologies already.

The way Oracle could impress SAP shops would be to publish a HANA result on their infrastructure solutions.  They could always use that opportunity to co-sell the benefits of their own software solutions as better alternatives but as usual, they bust-out on stage holding up their shiny object making  wild claims in their non-stop attempt to distract customers.

I’ll close with this. As part of their performance claims they state they achieve 2X more navigation steps using a single 36 core Oracle X5-2 servers (remember it is really 1 of 8 DB servers + all the storage servers). Glad to see Oracle trying to compare per core performance.  I’ll be on the look out for other examples of their newly found realization that performance and cost is largely dependent on per core performance and not just the sum of excessive cores like the T5-8 or M6-32.  Expect the SPARC M7  with 32 sockets of 32 cores per chip to be released in 2016.  It’s really 8 clusters of 4 core chiplets or essentially two of the old Sun ROCK chips IMO.  The latency due to traffic across the interconnects for coherency and data will be unbelievable (horrible). Would not be surprised that for the few benchmarks they do publish that they M7 models with fewer chip to minimize the cross chip penalty.  Then again, they may go with the 1024 core model hoping it can best a 192 core Power8 E880 servers.  I’m guessing it will be close.

Author: powertheenterprise

Client Executive & Enterprise Architect

4 thoughts on “Shiny objects & Distractions”

  1. SAP certified the BW-EMl results for DB2 for i when DB2 “outperformed” (though on half the dataset) the only HANA result at the time. SAP has a legal obligation to certify benchmarks that comply with the benchmark criteria. One can only assume that, since Oracle’s results did not get certified, they also did not comply with benchmark criteria.

    Like

    1. But why hasn’t SAP come out and say that they could not certify the Oracle benchmarks? And give a reason so theres no question of a doubt or assumptions?

      The DB2 result did not pose a threat to any HANA result as it’s the only result published at 500M records, half the record size of the majority of HANA results and clearly, the only Power7+ result so no chances of direct comparisons with same hardware running HANA.

      Oracle has been able to prove running the exact same Xeon hardware, same chipset, same # of cores, etc with only difference being Oracle DB instead of HANA. Until SAP comes out with a formal response stating why they haven’t certified the Oracle results you cannot assume its Oracle that did not comply. Its been two weeks already and still no word from SAP??

      Like

      1. Brett Murphy is the Director of Enterprise Architecture with SIS, LLC (aka Software Information Systems). Brett leads a senior team of top shelf engineers WHO FOCUS ON AIX, IBM i and Linux on Power technologies. 🙂

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s