Software Issues

So although the S824 is IBM's benchmark flagship for the scale-out range, the S812L and S822L are the servers that have the best chance at converting the kinds of users currently opt for x86 Xeons:

  • Support for Little Endian data
  • Best Linux support (Suse, Redhat & Ubuntu)
  • (Somewhat) lower power
  • 2U form factor which offers decent performance per U
  • and probably the most important reason of all: Affordable! ($10k-25k instead of $30-60k)

So yes, the S822L looks like the first worthy alternative since 2010 for the dual Xeon servers. But the S822L did not inherit all the strong points of the typical "Big Blue" servers. The clockspeeds are a bit lower to keep the power consumption in check, and more importantly the LE Linux support is still very young. Sure, POWERLinux has been around for ages, but the software ecosystem was mostly supporting a few Big Endian applications like heavy duty Java servers and SAP.

Let's make the issue at hand a bit more tangible. IBM offers a migration advisor that helps developers to port their applications. That is definitely a good thing, but it also clearly illustrates that building a software ecosystem is a lot more cumbersome than the POWERPoint slides let you believe. In case of IBM's LE Linux, porting the rich x86 Linux software ecosystem to OpenPOWER is not that straightforward:

  • Some code has inline x86 assembly such as thread resource locking code.
  • Some code has x86 specific APIs
  • No support for POWER in the make files which makes recompiling not straight forward
  • POWER is 64 bit only.

We have experienced ourselves that this was more than just theory.

Case in point: for X86-64 we simply installed well tuned, ready to run, pre compiled binaries. Benchmarking is pretty easy here with a minor scripting effort.

The story was very different on the IBM S822L. We installed Ubuntu 15.04 (3.19.0-15 - ppc64le). To satisfy our curiosity we did a quick benchmark run with Linux-Bench, an automated benchmarking tool that Ian also likes to use. The benchmark did almost nothing on our POWER system despite the fact that most of the software had some form of support for POWER based systems.

The same was true for most software out there: We had to port most of the software by delving deep in all kinds of config, Readme, and make files. In many cases, we had to search around for alternative libraries that did support OpenPOWER.

Although a lot of software had an entry for "IBM POWER" in the make files, we encountered a lot of trouble. The server nor IBM is to blame: it is simply a fact that most developers - especially those with HPC software - have put a lot more effort in optimizing and validating their Intel x86 version of their software than the more "exotic" platforms.

Linux Ecosystem Not at Full Throttle.. Yet

It is clear to us that the OpenPOWER Linux ecosytem is still young and as a result does not offer the same performance as the older PowerVM and AIX platforms. There is still quite a bit of performance headroom.

A good example is the crypto acceleration. The IBM POWER8 has a dedicated cryptographic unit supporting new POWER ISA instructions to accelerate AES (Encryption), SHA (Hashing), and CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) codes. A similar encryption unit was already available in the POWER7+ . We found out that an nx-crypto driver was available and part of the Linux 3.5 kernel. However, even though Ubuntu 15.04 LE for OpenPOWER is based upon the Linux kernel 3.19, the nx-crypto driver was nowhere to be found. You could argue that the same is true for Intel as they introduce new instructions, but as far as we could see, there was no encryption acceleration whatsoever possible, not even based upon the older POWER7+.

A few days after we have finished testing, we found out the vmx-crypto driver will be available in distributions using the Kernel 4.1 and later and will be enabled in OpenSSL 1.0.2 (currently 1.0.1f in the standard repositories). The slide below - found in a presentation given this month - show how fast the ecosystem is expanding but also that it is still in flux.

OpenPOWER gained traction in 2014, the POWER8 is the first POWER chip with LE support and the number of Linux servers on top of OpenPOWER systems is still very small compared to x86. It is pretty simple: it is a much smaller community than the x86 linux server community. According to "the platform", IBM claims that "scale-out POWER8 machines have seen double digit revenue growth in the first half of 2015" but those growth numbers are "against a very small base". That tells us a lot: it is indeed a very small community, but a quickly growing one.

Reading the Benchmarks Taking a Closer Look Inside IBM's S822L
Comments Locked

146 Comments

View All Comments

  • usernametaken76 - Thursday, November 12, 2015 - link

    Technically this is not true. IBM had a working version of AIX running on PS/2 systems as late as the 1.3 release. Unfortunately support was withdrawn and future releases of AIX were not compiled for x86 compatible processors. One can still find a copy of this release if one knows where to look. It's completely useless to anyone but a museum or curious hobbyist, but it's out there.
  • zenip - Friday, November 13, 2015 - link

    ...>--click here-
  • Steven Perron - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Hello Johan,

    I was reading this article, and I found it interesting. Since I am a developer for the IBM XL compiler, the comparisons between GCC and XL were particularly interesting. I tried to reproduce the results you are seeing for the LZMA benchmark. My results were similar, but not exactly the same.

    When I compared GCC 4.9.1 (I know a slightly different version that you) to XL 13.1.2 (I assume this is the version you used), I saw XL consistently ahead of GCC, even when I used -O3 for both compilers.

    I'm still interested in trying to reproduce your results, so I can see what XL can do better, so I have a couple questions on areas that could be different.

    1) What version of the XL compiler did you use? I assumed 13.1.2, but it is worth double checking.
    2) Which version of the 7-zip software did you use? I picked up p7zip 15.09.
    3) Also, I noticed when the Power 8 machine was running at full capacity (for me that was 192 threads on a 24 core machine), the results would fluctuate a bit. How many runs did you do for each configuration? Were the results stable?
    4) Did you try XL at the less aggressive and more stable options like "-O3" or "-O3 -qhot"?

    Thanks for you time.
  • Toyevo - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link

    Other than the ridiculous price of CDIMMs the power efficiency just doesn't look healthy. For data centers leasing their hardware like Amazon AWS, Google AppEngine, Azure, Rackspace, etc, clients who pay for hardware yet fail to use their allocation significantly help the bottom line of those companies by reduced overheads. For others high usage is a mandatory part of the ROI equation during its period as an operating asset, thus power consumption is a real cost. Even with our small cluster of 12 nodes the power efficiency is a real consideration, let alone companies standardizing toward IBM and utilising 100s or 1000s of nodes that are arguably less efficient.

    Perhaps you could devise some sort of theoretical total cost of ownership breakdown for these articles. My biggest question after all of this is, which one gets the most work done with the lowest overheads. Don't get me wrong though, I commend you and AnandTech on the detail you already provide.
  • AstroGuardian - Tuesday, December 8, 2015 - link

    It's good to have someone challenging Intel, since AMD crap their pants on regular basis
  • dba - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link

    Dear Johan:

    Can you extrapolate how much faster the Sparc S7 will be in your Cluster Benchmarking,
    if the 2 on Die Infiniband ports are Activated, 5, 10, 20% ???

    Thank You, dennis b.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now