Power Efficiency Comparison: Cisco UCS c7000 Enclosure · Page 2 of 21 Executive Summary ... BIOS,...

© 2013 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This document is Cisco Public Information. of 21

White Paper

Power Efficiency Comparison: Cisco UCS® 5108 Blade Server Chassis and HP BladeSystem®

c7000 Enclosure White Paper

February 2013


Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................. 3 Main Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Test Method Overview............................................................................................................................................. 3

Hardware Configuration 1....................................................................................................................................... 4

Results: Hardware Configuration 1........................................................................................................................ 5

Hardware Configuration 2....................................................................................................................................... 7

Results: Hardware Configuration 2........................................................................................................................ 8

Conclusion 10

Appendix A: Solution Firmware and Driver Details ............................................................................................ 11

Appendix B: Test Procedure................................................................................................................................. 12 Hardware and System Firmware ........................................................................................................................ 12 BIOS ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Operating System ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Benchmark.......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Java Virtual Machine........................................................................................................................................... 15 Power and Temperature Measurements ............................................................................................................ 15

Appendix C: SPECpower_ssj2008 Test Results ................................................................................................. 16


Executive Summary

Rising energy prices and a drastic increase in computing solution density have made energy management a

critical component of efficient data center operations. IT managers must take into account power utilization and

planning, in addition to, their data center availability, scalability, and resource utilization requirements to cost-

effectively deliver solutions for their business. Cisco is dedicated to the advancement of energy efficiency in the

data center and in computing ecosystems. This document compares the power efficiency of similarly configured

Cisco UCS® 5108 Blade Server Chassis and HP BladeSystem c7000 enclosures.

Cisco compared the power and performance characteristics of equivalently configured Cisco UCS 5108 Blade

Server Chassis and HP BladeSystem c7000 enclosures. The Cisco system was configured with the Cisco UCS

B200 M3 Blade Server, and the HP system was configured with the equivalent HP ProLiant BL460c Gen8

Server Blade. Both systems used the Intel Xeon processor E5-2600 product family. SPECpower_ssj2008, was

run on both configured solutions to evaluate performance, power consumption, and power efficiency.

The results demonstrated that the Cisco UCS 5108 enclosure configured with Cisco UCS B200 M3 blades was

more power efficient and consumed less power than the HP BladeSystem c7000 configured with HP ProLiant

BL460c Gen8 blades.

Main Findings ● Efficiency ◦ The Cisco UCS 5108 enclosure configured with Cisco UCS B200 M3 blades achieved a 6.3 percent

higher performance-to-power ratio than the HP BladeSystem c7000 with HP ProLiant BL460c blades,

using with similarly configured hardware, BIOS, and OS settings. ◦ At a 70 percent target load, the Cisco UCS blade solution consumed 6.5 percent less power than the

HP ProLiant blade solution.

● Power ◦ At the maximum target load, the Cisco UCS blade solution consumed 192 watts (W), or 7.2 percent

less power, than the equivalently configured HP BladeSystem solution. ◦ The Cisco UCS blade solution consumed 167 watts, or 17.4 percent less power, while idle than the

equivalently configured HP BladeSystem solution: a difference equivalent to the power consumed by

three idle HP Proliant BL460c Gen8 blades. ◦ Including the power consumed by a pair of redundant fabric interconnects, the Cisco UCS blade

solution consumes less power than an equivalent HP BladeSystem solution (see Figure 6 later in this

document).

Test Method Overview

To make relevant power consumption and efficiency comparisons, all solution variables that affect power

consumption and performance must be equivalent. The Cisco UCS 5108 and HP BladeSystem c7000 blade

solutions were similarly configured. The BIOS parameters affecting performance and power consumption were

optimized and set equivalently for each blade solution (see Appendix B for detailed BIOS parameter

configuration information). The same benchmark workload was run on each blade solution operating in the same

environmental conditions.


A benchmark provides a basis for comparison between equivalent computing solution offerings.

SPECpower_ssj2008 is a benchmark developed by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC),

a nonprofit group of computer vendors, system integrators, universities, research organizations, publishers, and

consultants. The benchmark is designed to provide a view of server system power consumption while the

system runs Java server applications. The results from each SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark are listed in

Appendix C. These results provide the data that supports the analysis in this report.

Hardware Configuration 1

The first blade solution evaluated was a single enclosure configured with eight blades. The Cisco and HP blade

enclosures were configured similarly, with comparable management hardware components (Table 1). To

measure power consumption during benchmark execution, a power analyzer was connected to the power supply

input of each blade enclosure.

Table 1. Blade Solution (Configuration 1)

Enclosure Cisco UCS 5108 HP BladeSystem c7000

Blade Slots Available/Installed 8/8 16/8

Enclosure Management Module UCS 6248UP [2]1 Onboard Administrator Module [2]

Internal IO Module UCS 2204XP Fabric Extender [2] VC FlexFabric 10Gb Module [2]

Power Supply 2500W Platinum Rated [4] 2400W Platinum Rated [4]

Fan Slots Available/Installed 8/8 10/8

Blade Model B200 M3 BL460c Gen8

Form Factor Half Height Half Height

Processor Intel Xeon E5-2660 [2] Intel Xeon E5-2660 [2]

Physical/Logical Cores 16/32 16/32

Memory 4GB DDR3 RDIMM PC3L-12800 [8] 4GB DDR3 RDIMM PC3L-12800 [8]

Hard Disk Drive 300GB 10K 6Gb, RAID 0 [1] 300GB 10K 6Gb, RAID 0 [1]

Network VIC 1240 10Gb 4-port Adapter [1] FlexFabric 10Gb 2-port Adapter [1]

Storage Controller LSI Logic SAS 2004 [1] Smart Array P220i [1]

1. The Cisco UCS 6248UP 48-Port Fabric Interconnect provides the management and communication backbone for the Cisco UCS B-Series Blade Servers and C-Series Rack Servers. A single redundant pair of fabric interconnects supports up to 20 blade enclosures in a single highly available management domain. In the power efficiency comparison for this configuration, the power consumed by the redundant pair of fabric interconnects was not included in the measurement.

The latest available system firmware at the time of testing was downloaded and installed; see Appendix A for

additional details.

Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise with Service Pack 1 (SP1) was installed on each server. After

installation, the update utility was run, and all available updates at the time of testing were installed. The same

operating system power management settings were used for both solutions; see the Operating System section

of the test procedure in Appendix B for additional details.

Using the Cisco UCS service profile feature, all Cisco UCS blade BIOS parameters were updated

simultaneously using a common BIOS policy. Each BIOS parameter was manually duplicated on the HP blade

servers using the HP ROM-Based Setup Utility; see the BIOS section of the test procedure in Appendix B.

The blade enclosure power management policy was set to grid redundant for each solution. Only the enclosure

power supplies were connected to the power meter. External networking components were not included in the

power measurements.


Results: Hardware Configuration 1

At maximum target load, the Cisco UCS blade enclosure consumed 192W, or 7.2 percent less power than the

equivalent HP blade solution. In the active-idle state, the Cisco UCS blade enclosure consumed 167W, or 17.4

percent less power than the HP blade solution.

The Cisco UCS blade solution consumed less power while providing performance comparable to that of the HP

blade solution. Thus, the Cisco UCS blade solution was more efficient, with a 6.3 percent greater performance-

to-power ratio than the HP blade solution (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Blade Solution Power Efficiency (Configuration 1)

The benchmark computes power efficiency by dividing the number of Java server application operations

performed by the average power consumed at each target interval. The performance per watt for each interval is

shown in Figure 2. At each target load, the Cisco blade solution demonstrated a power efficiency advantage

over the comparable HP blade solution. The Cisco blade solution advantage was 4.1 to 8.0 percent better

performance per watt across all target loads.


Figure 2. Target Load Power Efficiency (Configuration 1)

The methods used to estimate and plan power requirements vary widely. A general rule used by many IT

professional is to size the solution based up power consumption at a specified target workload. The typical

target workloads range from 50 to 70 percent utilization. For this comparison, power consumption at a 70

percent SPECpower_ssj2008 target load was plotted as shown in Figure 3. At this reference point, the Cisco

UCS blade solution consumes 127W, or 6.5 percent less power than the comparable HP blade solution.

Another efficiency metric used by IT professionals is the amount of power consumed while the system is idle.

The SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark includes an active-idle measurement. The average power consumed by

the Cisco blade solution was 167W, or 17.4 percent less than the equivalent HP blade solution, as shown in

Figure 4.

Figure 3. Blade Solution Power Efficiency at 70 Percent Target Load (Configuration 1)

SPEC Fair Use Rule disclosure condition: At 70 percent target load Cisco UCS B200 M3 Blade Server achieved 7,902,138 ssj_ops using 1824W, and HP ProLiant BL460c Gen8 blade solution achieved 8,119,073 ssj_ops using 1951W.


Figure 4. Blade Solution Active-Idle Power (Configuration 1)

Hardware Configuration 2

Blade solutions can be extremely efficient. For that reason, enterprise customers deploy multiple blade

enclosures, to achieve the best power density and gain management advantages compared to traditional rack

servers.

Configuration of a large-scale hardware solution, consisting of hundreds of blade servers, to measure power

efficiency is not practical. Instead, a base hardware unit is used to scale and extrapolate power efficiency. The

logical base unit is a fully configured blade enclosure. The HP BladeSystem c7000 supports 16 blades per

enclosure. Thus, a 16-blade solution was used as the base hardware unit (Table 2). The base hardware unit is

duplicated for each 16-blade increment.

Table 2. Base Hardware Unit (Configuration 2)

Enclosure 2X Cisco UCS 51081 1X HP BladeSystem c7000

Blade Slots Available/Installed 2X 8/8 16/16

Enclosure Management Module UCS 6248UP [2]2 Onboard Administrator Module [2]

Internal IO Module 2X UCS 2204XP Fabric Extender [2] VC FlexFabric 10Gb Module [2]

Power Supply 2X 2500W Platinum Rated [4] 2400W Platinum Rated [6]

Fan Slots Available/Installed 2X 8/8 10/10

Blade Model B200 M3 BL460c Gen8

Form Factor Half Height Half Height

Processor Intel Xeon E5-2660 [2] Intel Xeon E5-2660 [2]

Physical/Logical Cores 16/32 16/32

Memory 8GB DDR3 RDIMM PC3L-10600 [4] 8GB DDR3 RDIMM PC3L-10600 [4]

Hard Disk Drive 300GB 10K 6Gb, RAID 0 [1] 300GB 10K 6Gb, RAID 0 [1]

Network VIC 1240 10Gb 4-port Adapter [1] FlexFabric 10Gb 2-port Adapter [1]

Storage Controller LSI Logic SAS 2004 [1] Smart Array P220i [1]

1. Two Cisco UCS 5108 blade enclosures are required to achieve the base hardware unit. 2. The Cisco UCS 6248UP 48-Port Fabric Interconnect is a core part of Cisco UCS. Typically deployed in redundant pairs, the

Cisco UCS 6248UP provides uniform access to both network and storage. The Cisco UCS fabric extender architecture


provides management for 20 blade enclosures in a single unified system without additional complexity, thus eliminating dedicated chassis management and blade switches and reducing the number of cables required.

The procedures from the previous analyses were used to measure performance and power consumption with

one exception: the power consumed by the pair of redundant Cisco UCS 6248UP fabric interconnects was

included during execution of the SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark.

Results: Hardware Configuration 2

Beginning with the base hardware unit, the total power consumption was compared for each 16-blade increment.

A single pair of fabric interconnects can support up to 20 blade enclosures, or 160 blades, so the power

consumed by the redundant pair of interconnects was added once to each 16-blade increment for comparison.

For example, the power consumed by an 80-blade solution was calculated using 10 Cisco UCS 5108 enclosures

and 2 Cisco UCS 6248UP fabric interconnects, and using 5 HP BladeSystem c7000 enclosures (Figure 5). A

single Cisco UCS enclosure with 8 blades consumed 1991W. With the same target load, the power consumed

by the redundant pair of fabric interconnects was 530W (see Appendix C). With the same target load, a single

HP blade enclosure consumed 4378W. The calculations for projecting power consumption for an 80-blade

solution were 10 x 1991W + 2 x 265W, or approximately 20.4 kW for the Cisco UCS solution; and 5 x 4378W, or

approximately 21.8 kW for the HP BladeSystem solution.

Figure 5. Example of Total Power Comparison Using an 80-Blade Solution


With the first increment, the Cisco UCS solution consumes 129W more power than the equivalent HP

BladeSystem solution. With the next increment, the Cisco solution draws 267W less power than the equivalent

HP BladeSystem solution. The unified fabric power savings advantage becomes more apparent as the number

of blade enclosures increases, because for every HP blade enclosure added to the system, duplicate onboard

administrators and virtual connect switches are needed. As the number of blades increase, the power savings

decisively favors the Cisco UCS blade solution. The projected power savings at 160 blades was greater than 3.4

kW; see Figure 6 and Figure 7, which show the power savings across the entire range.

Using 160 Cisco blades instead of HP ProLiant blades, the end user can save more than 3.4 kW of power. The

power savings is nearly equivalent to turning off an HP c7000 BladeSystem fully configured with HP ProLiant

blades. The projected power savings is a conservative estimate that does not include the additional power

savings from data center infrastructure. Additional infrastructure power is required for distribution (transformer

and conversion losses) and cooling (mechanical cooling). Assuming a facility power usage efficiency (PUE) rate

of 1.6, the projected total power savings is 5.5 kW.

Figure 6. Projected Cisco UCS Power Savings


Figure 7. Projected Power per Blade

SPEC Fair Use Rule disclosure condition: At 90 percent target load Cisco UCS B200 M3 Blade Server achieved 9,265,289 ssj_ops using 1991W, and HP ProLiant BL460c Gen8 blade solution achieved 20,208,798 ssj_ops using 4378W.

Conclusion

The SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark results yielded comparable performance for both blade solutions. Both

blade solutions were configured with similar hardware and firmware running the same workload; however, the

Cisco blade solution consumed less power from the active-idle state through the maximum target load.

The first configuration measured the power efficiency of the blade, blade enclosure, and internal management

components of a typical high-availability deployment. The Cisco UCS solution with Cisco UCS B200 M3 blades

had 6.3 percent greater power efficiency than the HP BladeSystem solution with HP ProLiant BL460c Gen8

blades. With a 70 percent target load, the Cisco UCS solution used 6.5 percent less power than the HP

BladeSystem solution. In the active-idle state, the Cisco UCS solution consumed 17.4 percent less power than

the equivalent HP BladeSystem solution.

The second configuration provided a construct for comparing power efficiency through scaling. The comparison

used a base hardware unit of measure: two Cisco UCS 5108 blade enclosures with a redundant pair of Cisco

UCS 6248UP fabric interconnects compared to one HP BladeSystem c7000 blade enclosure. Even including the

power consumed by the pair of redundant fabric interconnects, the Cisco UCS blade solution consumed less

power than an equivalent HP BladeSystem solution. The Cisco solution used 267W less power than the

equivalent 32-blade HP BladeSystem solution. As the number of blades increased, the power savings steadily

increased in favor of the Cisco UCS blade solution. The projected power savings at 160 blades was more than

3.4 kW.

Over the years, computing solutions have become less expensive to purchase and maintain, delivering more

computing capacity at lower equipment and operating costs. At the same time, the cost of energy has continued

to increase. The industry is at the point where the cost of electricity to run and cool computing systems can

exceed the cost of the initial system purchase. With its higher performance-per-watt power ratio, the Cisco UCS

solution provides a more efficient platform than the HP BladeSystem solution.


Appendix A: Solution Firmware and Driver Details

Table 3 provides firmware and driver details for the Cisco UCS 5108 Blade Server and HP BladeSystem c7000

solutions.

Table 3. Enclosure and Blade Solution Firmware and Driver Configurations

Component Cisco Hewlett Packard

Enclosure Model UCS 5108 Blade System c7000

Enclosure Management Firmware 5.0(3)N2(2.04b) 3.70

Internal IO Module Firmware 2.0(4b) 3.70

Blade Model B200 M3 BL 460c Gen8

System BIOS B200M3.2.0.4a.0.080920121557 I31 08/20/2012

Integrated Management Controller Firmware

2.0(4b) 1.10

Network Adapter Firmware 2.0(4b) 4.1.450.5

Storage Controller Firmware 20.10.1-0061 3.22

Power Mangement Controller Firware N/A 3.0

Management Controller Driver N/A 3.4.0.0

Network Adapter Driver 2.1.0.10 4.0.449.0

Storage Controller Driver 5.1.112.64 6.22.0.64

Display Adapter Driver 6.1.7600.16385 1.2.1.0


Appendix B: Test Procedure

This appendix describes the test procedure used to compare the Cisco UCS 5108 Blade Server and HP

BladeSystem c7000 solutions.

Hardware and System Firmware Each blade solution was configured similarly with comparable hardware components; see Tables 1 and 2 earlier

in this document for hardware configuration details. The latest available system firmware at the time of testing

was downloaded and installed; see Appendix A for details.

BIOS The available BIOS parameters differ between the Cisco and HP blade solutions. The BIOS parameters were set

as equivalently as possible to help ensure comparable performance and power efficiency; see Table 4 for the

BIOS settings configured for each blade solution.

Table 4. Blade Solution BIOS Settings

Component B200 M3 BL460c Gen8

Processor Configuration

Intel HyperThreading Technology Enabled Enabled

Number of Enabled Cores All All Cores Enabled

Intel VT Disabled Disabled

Intel VT-d Disabled Disabled

Processor Performance Configuration

CPU Performance Enterprise1 -

Workload Configuration2 Balanced Balanced Performance

Hardware Prefetcher Disabled Disabled

Adjacent Sector Prefetcher Disabled Disabled

DCU Streamer Prefetcher Disabled Disabled

Processor Power Management Configuration

Enhanded SpeedStep Technology Enabled Enabled

Intel Turbo Boost Technology Enabled Enabled

Processor Power State C1 Enhanced Enabled -

Processor Power State C6 Enabled Enabled

Energy Performance Policy3 OS Controlled OS Controlled

HP Power Profile4 - Balanced Performance

Memory Configuration

Operating Memory Voltage Low Voltage Optimized for Power5

Low Voltage DDR Mode Power Savings Mode Balanced6

QPI Configuration

QPI Link Frequency Select 6.4GT/s Min QPI Speed7


Component B200 M3 BL460c Gen8

USB Configuration8

USB Control - USB Enabled

USB Boot Support - Enabled

Removeable Flash Media Boot Sequence - External DriveKey First

1. Selecting Enterprise disables all prefetchers and data reuse: for example, the hardware prefetcher, adjacent cache line prefetcher, and data cache unit (DCU) prefetcher.

2. The equivalent HP BIOS parameter is HP Power Regulator, which uses the operating system power management policy. The operating system used, Microsoft Window Server 2008, ignores this parameter regardless of its setting.

3. The equivalent HP BIOS parameter is Energy/Performance Bias. Balanced Performance is the default setting; it provides the best balance of power efficiency and performance and is recommended by HP for most environments.

4. Although the parameter was set to Balanced Power and Performance, it is automatically set to Custom when individual power settings are modified, as in this case.

5. The equivalent HP BIOS parameter is DIMM Voltage Preference. Optimized for Power Low Voltage DIMMs run at 1.35V, even if this voltage requires memory to run at a lower frequency.

6. The equivalent HP BIOS parameter is Memory Power Savings Mode. Balanced is the default setting for optimal power efficiency.

7. The minimum Intel QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) Link Frequency rate supported by the Intel Xeon processor E5-2600 product family is 6.4 gigatransfers per second (GTps).

8. All USB ports are enabled by default on the Cisco UCS B200 M3.

For a complete list of available BIOS settings for the Cisco UCS B200 M3 and HP BL460c Gen8, see the

following links:

● Cisco UCS Manager GUI Configuration Guide, Release 2.0 - Configuring BIOS Settings

● HP ROM-Based Setup Utility User Guide (HP Part Number: 347563-406)

Operating System The same Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise with Service Pack 1 image was installed on each blade

server. After the operating system was installed, the update utility was used to install all recommended and

optional updates available at the time of testing.

The same operating system power management settings were used on both blade solutions. The power

management plan was set to Balanced. The specific settings are shown in Figure 8.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/unified_computing/ucs/sw/gui/config/guide/2.0/b_UCSM_GUI_Configuration_Guide_2_0_chapter_011100.html

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00191707/c00191707.pdf


Figure 8. Operating System Power Management Options

To improve Java performance, the local security policy was modified to enable the Administrator account to lock

pages in memory. The security setting determines which accounts can use a process to keep data in physical

memory, which prevents the system from paging the data to virtual memory on disk.

Benchmark The latest SPECpower_ssj2008 version, Version 1.12, was installed on each blade and on the control system.

The SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark was developed by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation

(SPEC), a nonprofit group of computer vendors, system integrators, universities, research organizations,

publishers, and consultants. It was designed to provide a view of a server system's power consumption running

Java server applications.

SPECpower_ssj2008 consists of three main software components:

● Server-Side Java (SSJ)-Workload ◦ SSJ-Workload is a Java program designed to exercise the CPUs, caches, memory, scalability of

shared-memory processors, Java Virtual Machine (JVM) implementations, just-in-time (JIT) compilers,

garbage collection, and other aspects of the operating system of the system under test (SUT). ◦ For more information about SSJ, see http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-

Design_ssj.pdf.

● Power and Temperature Daemon (PTDaemon) ◦ PTDaemon offloads the work of controlling a power analyzer or temperature sensor during

measurement intervals to a system other than the SUT. ◦ For more information about PTDaemon, see http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPEC-

PTDaemon_Design.pdf.

http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-Design_ssj.pdf

http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-Design_ssj.pdf

http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPEC-PTDaemon_Design.pdf

http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPEC-PTDaemon_Design.pdf


● Control and Collect System (CCS), including Visual Activity Monitor (VAM) ◦ CCS is a multithreaded Java application that controls and enables the coordinated collection of data

from multiple data sources such as a workload running on a separate SUT, a power analyzer, and a

temperature sensor. ◦ VAM is a software package designed to display activity from one, two, or three SUTs simultaneously in

combination with the SPECpower_ssj2008 benchmark. ◦ For more information about CCS and VAM, see http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-

Design_ccs.pdf.

All results discussed in this document are from compliant runs. Although the tests have not been submitted to

SPEC for review, Cisco can disclose the results for the purpose of this study. The comparisons comply with the

required conditions outlined in the SPEC Fair Use Rule for SPECpower_ssj2008. All details required to

reproduce these results are listed in the appendixes. The files from each complaint run referenced in this

document are included in Appendix C.

Java Virtual Machine The same JVM version was installed on each blade and the control system. The JVM version installed was IBM

J9 Virtual Machine (VM): Build 2.6, Java Run Environment (JRE) 1.7.0, Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2

amd64-64 20120322_106209, JIT enabled, and ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation enabled.

The same JVM command-line options were used on all blades:

-Xgcpolicy:gencon -Xaggressive -Xcompressedrefs -Xmx1500m -Xms1500m -Xmn1100m

-XlockReservation -Xnoloa -XtlhPrefetch -Xlp -Xconcurrentlevel0

A complete list of JVM command-line options and their functions can be found in the IBM user guides for Java

V7 on Microsoft Windows.

Each blade was configured with two Intel Xeon processors E5-2660 CPUs, eight cores per socket, and two

threads (logical processors) per core. Eight JVM instances were started on each blade. Each JVM instance was

bound to four logical processors. The following CPU affinity commands were used:

start /high /affinity [F,F0,F00,F000,F0000,F00000,F000000,F0000000]

Power and Temperature Measurements Yokogawa WT210 Digital Power Meters were used to collect power measurements. The Yokogawa WT210 units

used were within calibration limits.

The enclosures were mounted in the same rack. The inlet temperature was measured at the front of each blade

enclosure during testing. A Digi International Watchport/H probe was used to collect temperature and humidity

data. The inlet temperatures recorded were approximately 24.5°C and varied less than 0.5°C between each test.

http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-Design_ccs.pdf

http://www.spec.org/power/docs/SPECpower_ssj2008-Design_ccs.pdf

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/java7sdk/v7r0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.java.aix.70.doc%2Fdiag%2Fpreface%2Fchanges_70%2Foverview_vm.html

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/java7sdk/v7r0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.java.aix.70.doc%2Fdiag%2Fpreface%2Fchanges_70%2Foverview_vm.html


Appendix C: SPECpower_ssj2008 Test Results

Figures 9 through 13 provide SPECpower_ssj2008 test results for the Cisco UCS 5108 Blade Server and HP

BladeSystem c7000 solutions.

Figure 9. SPECpower_ssj2008 Results for Cisco UCS B200 M3 (Configuration 1)


Figure 10. SPECpower_ssj2008 Results for HP BL460c Gen8 (Configuration 1)


Figure 11. SPECpower_ssj2008 Results for Cisco UCS B200 M3 (Configuration 2)


Figure 12. SPECpower_ssj2008 Results for Cisco UCS B200 M3 with Fabric Interconnects (Configuration 2)


Figure 13. SPECpower_ssj2008 Results for HP BL460c Gen8 (Configuration 2)


Printed in USA C11-727795-01 05/13

Power Efficiency Comparison: Cisco UCS c7000 Enclosure · Page 2 of 21 Executive Summary ... BIOS,...

Documents

Transcript of Power Efficiency Comparison: Cisco UCS c7000 Enclosure · Page 2 of 21 Executive Summary ... BIOS,...