3 ms·
I'm a proponent of ARM, but out of curiosity, why would Oracle's hardware not be your first choice in accelerating JVM workloads?
by cameron_b 4y ago
I'm a proponent of ARM, but out of curiosity, why would Oracle's hardware not be your first choice in accelerating JVM workloads?
- pshirshov 4y agoProbably because of the memory throughput?
- exabrial 4y agoI think that is what’s we’re seeing.
- oneplane 4y agoBecause it's not as performant per watt as an M2 (and in most cases not even an M1), and it also isn't as performance per rack unit. In a full-depth 1u tray you can fit a crapload of M1 Mac minis which perform better than anything oracle can stick in that 1U. There is a difference in the type of workload and the ultimate total size (i.e. if you have a single 2-rack workload then the M1 and M2 aren't an option at all -- those only make sense in parallel instantiated workloads and container-based loads). After experimenting with a shipment of M1's (before they had to be commissioned for an office that was still in the process of being built and furnished) I'm pretty confident that similar JVM performance isn't currently available on anything else if your max allocation per instance is 8-core or lower. As soon as your cores-per-workload is higher the cost/density swings back in favour of Intel again because the Ultra in the studio doesn't fit in 1U and energy/cooling COP becomes on par with classic servers again. Maybe on M2 that's not the case, but when I ran the experiment the M1 was all that was available. Maybe once the FPGAs for Intel get public bitstreams it might be as efficient on Intel again, but right now, it's not (and also not on AMD), and thus also not on anything Oracle. Note: didn't test Ampere, but would love it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 4y agoWe also have ‘normal’ workloads like databases. Not confident in the ports Oracle would provide