text:
Real-world virtualization benchmarking: the best server CPUs comparedby Johan De Gelas on 5/21/2009 3:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- IT Computing
66 Comments
Back to Article
binaryguru - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkIt seems to me, x86-based virutalization software is getting more and more complicated. Not only is x86 virtualization getting more complicated, it is getting more and more difficult to get reliable performance from it.
Let me explain my point.
The industry is clearly trying to do more with less hardware these days. Getting raw VM performance on commodity hardware is getting to a point where there is no predictable way to plan for an efficient VM environment.
Current VM technology is trying to simulate the flexibility and performance of mainframes. To me, this is clearly an impossible goal to achieve with the current or future x86 platform model.
All of the problems the industry is experiencing with VM consolidation does not exist on the mainframe. Running 4 'large' VMs for 'raw' performance. How about running 40 'large' VMs for 'raw' performance. Clearly, we all know that is impossible to achieve with current VM setups.
Now I'm not saying that virtuallization is a bad idea, it clearly is the ONLY solution for the future of computing. However, I think that the industry is going about it the wrong way. Server farms are becoming increasingly more difficult to manage, never mind the challenge of getting 100s of blade servers to play nice with each other while providing good processing throughput.
This problem has been solved about 20 years ago; and yet, here we are, struggling again with the "how can I get MORE from my technology investment" scenario.
In conclusion, I think we need to go back to utilizing huge monolithic computing designs; not computing clusters. Reply
mikidutzaa2 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkHello,
It would be useful (if possible) to have latency numbers/response times on the tests as well because rarely we are interested in throughput on our servers. What we usually care more is how long it takes the server to respond to user actions.
What is your opinion? Reply
JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI agree. I admit it is easier for us or any benchmark person to use throughput as immediately comparable (X is 10% faster than Y) and you have only one datapoint. That is why almost
Responsetime however can only be understood by drawing curves relative to the current throughtput / User concurrency. So yes, we are taking this excellent suggestion into consideration. The trade off might that articles get harder to read :-). Reply
mikidutzaa2 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkLooking forward to your new articles then, glad to hear :).
The articles don't necessarily have to be harder to read, you could put the detailed graphs on a separate page and maybe show only one response time for a "decent"/medium user concurrency.
Also, I would find interesting (if you have time) to have the same benchmarks with 2vcpu machines, I think this is a more common setup for virtualization. Very few people I think virtualize their most critical/highly used platforms - at least that's how we do it. We need virtualization for lightly used platforms (i.e. not very many users) but we are still very much interested in response time because the users perceive latency, not throughput.
So the important question is: if you have a virtual server (as opposed to a physical one) will the users notice? If so, by how much is it slower?
Thank you. Reply
RobAm - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkIt's good to see some unbiased analysis with respect to virtualization. It's also especially interesting that your workloads (which look much more like real world apps my company runs as opposed to SPECjbb, vmark, vconsolidate) shows a much more competitive landscape than vmware and Intel portray. Also, doesn't vmware prohibit benchmarking without their permission. Did they give you permission? Has VMware called offering to re-educate you? :-) Reply
Brovane - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkI was hoping for a some benchmarks on the Xeon x7xxx CPU for the Quad Socket Intel boxes. We are currently have Dell R900's and we where looking at adding to our ESX cluster. We where debating between the R900 with Hex cores our Xeon x55xx series CPU's in the R710. I see the x55xx series where bench marked but nothing on the Xeon MP series unless I am missing that part of the article. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkExpect a 24-core CPU comparison soon :-). Reply
Brovane - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkYou also might want to a 12-core comparison also. We have found that with a 4-socket box that you usually run out of memory before you run out CPU power. With the R900 having 32-Dimm Sockets, the R900's we purchased last year have 64GB of RAM and just use 2x2.93Ghz CPU's we max memory before CPU easily in our environment. Since Vmware licensing and Data Center licensing is done per Socket we only populate 2 of the sockets with CPU's and this seems to do great for us. You basically double your licensing costs if you go with all 4 sockets occupied. Just a thought as to how sometimes virtualization is done in the real world. There is such a price premium for 8GB memory Dimm's it isn't worth it to put 256GB in one box with all 4 sockets occupied. The 4GB Dimm's did reach price parity this year so we were looking at going for 128GB of memory on our new R900's however Intel also released Hex-core so we still don't see much reason to occupy all 4 sockets. Reply
yasbane - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkI know positive feedback is always appreciated for the hard work put in but it seems very rare that we see any non-microsoft benchmarks for server stuff these days on Anandtech. Is there any particular reason for this...? I don't mean to carp but I recall the days when non-microsoft technologies actually got a mention on Anandtech. Sadly, we don't seem to see that anymore :(
Cheers Reply
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkYasbane, my first server testing articles (DB2, MySQL) were all pure Linux benches. However, we have moved on to a new kind of realworld benchmarks and it takes a while to master the new benchmarks we have introduced. Running Calling Circle and Dell DVD store posed more problems on Linux than on Windows: we have lower performance, a few weird error messages and so on. In our lab, about 50% of the servers are running linux (and odd machines is running OS-X and another Solaris :-) and we definitely would love to see some serious linux benchmarking again. But it will take time.
Xen benchmarks are happening as I write this BTW. Reply
has407 - Sunday, May 24, 2009 - linkThanks very much for the additional data points, and especially for providing details. Still digesting your data (thanks again!), but a few thoughts...
1. At the risk of being pedantic... Both VMark and vAplus scores are dimensionless. It would be better to avoid terms such as "faster" to describe them; IMHO, that has lead to distraction (or *cough* in some cases *cough* irrationality). Is a car that can move 5 people at 160KPH "faster" than a bus that can move 20 people at 80KPH? Maybe sticking to terms such as "throughput" or simply "performance" would be better.
2. While the geometric mean provides a nice single score, I hope you will continue to publish the detailed numbers that contribute to it (as done with VMark disclosures). The individual scores provide important clues as to whether a closer look is warranted, whether of the workload mix, the CPU, or the hypervisor.
For example, the sum of the workload (or arithmetic mean * 4) provides total overall throughput, which is an important indicator; in an ideal world that should match the geometric mean. A significant difference between those suggests a closer look is warranted.
E.g., Unless you have a workload mix that can soak up extra CPU cycles, the Xeon 5080 and to a lesser extent the Opteron 2222 don't look like good choices. For the 5080, the CPU-intensive OLAP VM contributes 60% to the result, whereas the others tend to be ~40-45%, and the difference between the geometric and arithmetic mean for the 5080 is 19%, whereas for the rest it's <14%.
3. Note what happens if you pull the CPU-intensive OLAP VM out of the picture. While I can't empirically test that, and I'm using a bit of a sledgehammer here... Eliminate it from the scoring and see what happens: the difference between the geometric and arithmetic mean drops to ~1% across the board.
Moreover, the ratio of the scores with and without the OLAP VM is quite constant, with a correlation > 0.999. The outliers again, but not by all that much, being the Xeon 5080 and the Opteron 2222, and to a lesser extent the Xeon L5350.
4. In short, I'm not sure what the addition of a CPU-intensive VM such as OLAP is adding to the picture, other than soaking up CPU cycles and some memory. A CPU-intensive VM is the easiest (or should be the easiest) for a hypervisor to handle, and appears to tell us little more than what idle time figures would tell us. In the case of the Xeon 5080 and Opteron 2222, it also appears to inflate their overall score (whether due to the processor or hypervisor, or more likely a combination of the two, is unclear).
5. That said, maybe it would be good to include a CPU-intensive VM in the mix, if for no other reason than to highlight those systems or hypervisors where that VM scores higher or lower than expected (e.g., the Xeon 5080 and Opteron 2222). However, I'd bet you can achieve the same result with a lot less work using a simpler synthetic CPU/memory-intensive test in the VM.
OTOH, maybe artificially driving CPU utilization towards 100% with such CPU-intensive VM's doesn't really tell us much more than we'd know without them--as IMHO my admittedly crude analysis suggests--and that vAplus might be a better indicator for those looking for clues as to appropriate workload allocation among virtualized systems, rather than those looking for a single magic number to quantify performance. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - link"However, I'd bet you can achieve the same result with a lot less work using a simpler synthetic CPU/memory-intensive test in the VM. "
That would eliminate the network traffic. While the "native" running database is not making the OS kernel sweat, the hypervisor does get some work from the network, and thus this VM influences the scores of the other VMs. It is not a gigantic effect but it is there. And remember, we want to keep control of what happens in our VMs. Once you start running synthetic benches, you have no idea what kind of instructions are run. SQL server is closed source too, but at least we know that the instructions which will be send to the CPU will be the same as in the real world.
We will of course continue to publish all the different scores so that our inquisitive readers can make their minds :-). Nothing worse than people who quickly gloss over the graphs and than start ranting ;-).
Thanks for the elaborate comment, although I am still not sure why you would remove the OLAP database. The fact that the 4 core machines (Dempsey, dualcore opteron) do not have a lot of cycles left for the other VMs illustrates what happens in an oversubscribed system where one VM demands a lot of CPU power. Reply
has407 - Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - linkJohan -- My thought was not so much whether to get rid of the OLAP VM, than whether a simpler CPU-intensive VM would suffice, synthetic or otherwise. However, that's probably an academic question at this point, as you've already got it the mix. (And a question I probably spent too much time thinking-out-loud about in my post. :)
The other arguably more important questions are whether including CPU-intensive VM's (OLAP or synthetic) in order to drive CPU utilization to 100% easier--especially as it is 25% of the workload--provides significant additional information, and whether is more representative than the VMark approach.
That's a much harder question to answer, and far more difficult to model. Real-world benchmarks may be desirable and necessary, but they are not sufficient; a representative and real-world workload mix is also needed. What constitutes a "representative and real-world" mix is of course the Big Question.
I'll spare everyone more thinking-out-loud on that subject :), other than to say that benchmarks should help us understand how to characterize and model to more accurately predict performance. Without that we end up with lots of data (snapshots of workload X on hardware Y), but little better formal or rigorous understanding as to why. (One area where synthetic- or micro-benchmarks can help provide insight, as much as they might be derided. And one reason IMHO why what passes for most benchmarking today contributes more noise than signal. But that's another subject.)
In any case, it's good to have vApus to provide additional data points and as a counterpoint to VMark. Thanks again. Looking forward to the next round of data. Reply
has407 - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkSorry, fourth column in table labeled "B:GM" (duplicate of third column label) should be "B:AM". Reply
has407 - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkp.s. here's the numbers on which that post was based, calculated using your raw data...
A - With OLAP VM
B - Without OLAP VM
GM - Geometric mean
AM - Arithmetic mean
- A:GM -- geometric mean of all four VM's * 4
- A:AM -- arithmetic mean of all four VM's * 4 (or the sum of the individual scores).
- B:GM -- geometric mean of the three VM's excluding the OLAP VM * 3.
- B:AM -- arithmetic mean of the three VM's excluding OLAP * 3 (or the sum of the individual scores excluding the OLAP VM).
2.03 2.14 1.28 1.29 1.58 Dual Opteron 8389 2.9
2.45 2.54 1.60 1.60 1.54 Dual Xeon X5570 2.93
2.08 2.21 1.29 1.29 1.61 Dual Xeon X5570 2.93 HT off
1.87 1.99 1.16 1.17 1.61 Dual Xeon E5450 3.0
1.68 1.81 1.02 1.02 1.65 Dual Xeon X5365 3.0
1.12 1.22 0.68 0.68 1.66 Dual Xeon L5350 1.86
0.59 0.78 0.30 0.31 1.96 Dual Xeon 5080 3.73
0.82 0.96 0.45 0.46 1.80 Dual Opteron 2222 3.0
Correlation( A:GM, B:GM ): 0.9993
Hope that helps explains my conclusions.
solori - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkI'm glad to see Johan's team has gone beyond the "closed" VMmark standard with a Windows-based benchmark and I hope this leads to more sanity-checking of results down the line. However, the first step is verifying the process before you get to the results. Here's an example of where you're leaving some issues dangling:
"However, the web portal (MCS eFMS) will give the hypervisor a lot of work if Hardware Assisted Paging (RVI, NPT, EPT) is not available. If EPT or RVI is available, the TLBs (Translation Lookaside Buffer) of the CPUs will be stressed quite a bit, and TLB misses will be costly."
This implies RVI is defaulted for 32-bit VM's. VMware's default for 32-bit virtual machines is BT (binary-translation) and not RVI, even though VROOM! tests show a clear advantage for RVI over BT for most 32-bit workloads. While you effectively discuss the affects of disabling RVI in the 64-bit case, you're unclear about "forcing" RVI in the 32-bit case. Are you saying that AMD-v and RVI are enabled for the 32-bit workloads by default? VMware's guidance states otherwise:
"By default, ESX automatically runs 32bit VMs (Mail, File, and Standby) with BT, and runs 64bit VMS (Database, Web, and Java) with AMD-V + RVI."
- VROOM! Blog, http://blogs.vmware.com/performance/2009/03/perfor...">http://blogs.vmware.com/performance/200...uation-o...
This guidance is echoed in the latest VI3.5 Performance Guide Release:
"RVI is supported beginning with ESX 3.5 Update 1. By default, on AMD processors that support it ESX Update 1 uses RVI for virtual machines running 64-bit guest operating systems and does not use RVI for virtual machines running 32-bit guest operating systems.
Although RVI is disabled by default for virtual machines running 32-bit guest operating systems, enabling it for certain 32-bit operating systems may achieve performance benefits similar to those achieved for 64-bit operating systems. These 32-bit operating systems include Windows 2003 SP2, Windows Vista, and Linux.
When RVI is enabled for a virtual machine we recommend you also?when possible?configure that virtual machine?s guest operating system and applications to make use of large memory pages."
- Performance Best Practices and Benchmarking Guidelines, VMware, Inc. (page 18)
Your chart on page 9 further indicates "SVM + RVI" for 32-bit hosts, but there is no mention of steps you took to enable RVI. This process is best described by the Best Practices Guide:
"If desired, however, this can be changed using the VI Client by selecting the virtual machine to be configured, clicking Edit virtual machine settings, choosing the Options tab, selecting Virtualized MMU, and selecting the desired radio button. Force use of these features where available enables RVI, Forbid use of these features disables RVI, and Allow the host to determine automatically results in the default behavior described above."
- Performance Best Practices and Benchmarking Guidelines, VMware, Inc. (page 18)
So, which is it: 32-bit without RVI or undocumented changes to the VMM according to VMware guidance? If it is the former, the conclusions are misleading (as stated); if the latter, such modifications should be stated explicitly since they do not represent the "typical" or "default" configuration for 32-bit guests. This oversight does not invalidate the results of the test by any means, it simply makes them more difficult to interpret.
That said, a good effort! You may as well contrast 32-bit w & w/o RVI - those results might be interesting too. I know you guys probably worked VERY hard to get these results out, and I'd like to see more, despite what "tshen83" thinks :-)
Collin C. MacMillan -- http://solori.wordpress.com">http://solori.wordpress.com Reply
JohanAnandtech - Sunday, May 24, 2009 - linkHi Collin,
I was under the impression that ESX now choses RVI+SVM automatically, but that might have been ESX 4.0. I am going to check again on monday, but I am 99.9% sure we have enabled RVI in most tests (unless indicated otherwise) as it is a best performance practice for the Opterons. Reply
alpha754293 - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkAnother excellent, thorough, well researched article.
Thanks! :o) Reply
JohanAnandtech - Sunday, May 24, 2009 - linkYou are most welcome. Thx for letting us know! Reply
knutjb - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkThanks for presenting another point of view. When I read the original article showing the new Xeons so far ahead, I was skeptical. Rarely does a company produce a product that is such a huge leap, not only over their competitors, over their own products too. When there is only one primary benchmark the results can be skewed. Also, the wide variety of software combinations is eyepopping so it is very time consuming to create a resonable balance using real databaeses for a different, but valid benchmark.
Thanks for the hard work, I look forward to reading more on this subject. Reply
Bandoleer - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkI have been running Vmware Virtual Infrastructure for 2 years now. While this article can be useful for someone looking for hardware upgrades or scaling of a virtual system, CPU and memory are hardly the bottlenecks in the real world. I'm sure there are some organizations that want to run 100+ vm's on "one" physical machine with 2 physical processors, but what are they really running????
The fact is, if you want VM flexability, you need central storage of all your VMDK's that are accessible by all hosts. There is where you find your bottlenecks, in the storage arena. FC or iSCSI, where are those benchmarks? Where's the TOE vs QLogic HBA? Considering 2 years ago, there was no QLogic HBA for blade servers, nor does Vmware support TOE.
However, it does appear i'll be able to do my own baseline/benching once vSphere ie VI4 materializes to see if its even worth sticking with vmware or making the move to HyperV which already supports Jumbo, TOE iSCSI with 600% increased iSCSI performance on the exact same hardware.
But it would really be nice to see central storage benchmarks, considering that is the single most expensive investment of a virtual system.
duploxxx - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkperhaps before you would even consider to move from Vmware to HyperV check first in reality what huge functionality you will loose in stead of some small gains in HyperV.
ESX 3.5 does support Jumbo, iscsi offload adapters and no idea how you are going to gain 600% if iscsi is only about 15% slower then FC if you have decent network and dedicated iscsi box????? Reply
Bandoleer - Friday, May 22, 2009 - link"perhaps before you would even consider to move from Vmware to HyperV check first in reality what huge functionality you will loose in stead of some small gains in HyperV. "
what you are calling functionality here are the same features that will not work in ESX4.0 in order to gain direct hardware access for performance.
Bandoleer - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkThe reality is I lost around 500MBps storage throughput when I moved from Direct Attached Storage. Not because of our new central storage, but because of the limitations of the driver-less Linux iSCSI capability or the lack there of. Yes!! in ESX 3.5 vmware added Jumbo frame support as well as flow control support for iSCSI!! It was GREAT, except for the part that you can't run JUMBO frames + flow control, you have to pick one, flow control or JUMBO.
I said 2 years ago there was no such thing as iSCSI HBA's for blade servers. And that ESX does not support the TOE feature of Multifunction adapters (because that "functionality" requires a driver).
Functionality you lose by moving to hyperV? In my case, i call them useless features, which are second to performance and functionality.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkI fully agree that in many cases the bottleneck is your shared storage. However, the article's title indicated "Server CPU", so it was clear from the start that this article would discuss CPU performance.
"move to HyperV which already supports Jumbo, TOE iSCSI with 600% increased iSCSI performance on the exact same hardware. "
Can you back that up with a link to somewhere? Because the 600% sounds like an MS Advertisement :-).
Bandoleer - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkMy statement is based on my own experience and findings. I can send you my benchmark comparisons if you wish.
I wasn't ranting at the article, its great for what it is, which is what the title represents. I was responding to this part of the article that accidentally came out as a rant because i'm so passionate about virtualization.
"What about ESX 4.0? What about the hypervisors of Xen/Citrix and Microsoft? What will happen once we test with 8 or 12 VMs? The tests are running while I am writing this. We'll be back with more. Until then, we look forward to reading your constructive criticism and feedback.
Sorry, i meant to be more constructive haha...
JohanAnandtech - Sunday, May 24, 2009 - link"My statement is based on my own experience and findings. I can send you my benchmark comparisons if you wish. "
Yes, please do. Very interested in to reading what you found.
"I wasn't ranting at the article, its great for what it is, which is what the title represents. "
Thx. no problem...Just understand that these things takes time and cooperation of the large vendors. And getting the right $5000 storage hardware in lab is much harder than getting a $250 videocard. About 20 times harder :-).
Bandoleer - Sunday, May 24, 2009 - linkI haven't looked recently, but high performance tiered storage was anywhere from $40k - $80k each, just for the iSCSI versions, the FC versions are clearly absurd.
solori - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkLook at ZFS-based storage solutions. ZFS enables hybrid storage pools and an elegant use of SSDs with commodity hardware. You can get it from Sun, Nexenta or by rolling-your-own with OpenSolaris:
http://solori.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/add-ssd-to-...">http://solori.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/add-ssd-to-... Reply
pmonti80 - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkStill it would be interesting to see those central storage benchmarks or at least knowing if you will/won't be doing them for whatever reason. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkWe are definitely interesting in doing this, but of course we like to do this well. I'll update as soon as I can. Reply
pc007 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkI agree, CPU & RAM usage are not really bottlenecks in my experience. Processes hamering slow disk and making everything else slower is the main concern. Reply
SeanG - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkThere are 300 million people in this country and you're surprised that some of them are ignorant/jerks/crazy? We're all supposed to be ashamed because not everyone from this country is mentally stable? It's insulting to people like me who care about this country to hear you talk about being ashamed over something that is a problem with humanity in general and not only in the US.
lopri - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkIt is said to see such a fascist persona in this comment section of such a fascinating article. I feel ashamed as one residing in the U.S. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkDon't be. Tshen must be the first US citizen that I have encountered that hates Belgians :-). All other US people I have met so far were very friendly. In fact, I am very much astonished how hospitable US people are. Sometimes we have only spoken over the phone or via e-mail with each other and the minute I arrive in the US, we are having a meal and chatting about IT. When you arrive in Silicon valley, one can only be amazed about the enormous energy and entrepreneurship this valley breathes. Reply
tshen83 - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkYou are a slave, Johan, whether you realize it or not. The people in Silicon Valley are "nice to you" because they are in the process of negotiating a purchased piece of publication from you.
You don't know anything about the Silicon Valley nor are you qualified to talk about it. If anything is true, Silicon Valley is in the toilet right now with bankruptcies everywhere. The state is broke, with Arnold Schwarzenegger begging for Federal bailouts. The last two big "entrepreneurships" coming out of Silicon Valley: Facebook and Twitter are both advertising scams without a viable business model.
I don't hate Belgians. I do hate retards like you whether you come from Belgium or not.
[FROM JARRED: We are proponents of free speech, but repeated name calling and insults with little to no factual information to back up claims will not be tolerated. There was worse, and I'm leaving this text so you can see how it started.] Reply
tshen83 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkAs what I have expected, Johan, your sorry ass came up with a benchmark that invalidates VMmark.
On page 9 "Nehalem vs Shanghai" http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3567&...">http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3567&...
Where is the Nehalem vs Shanghai benchmarks? All I see is a chart pumping Opteron 8389.
Let me dissect the situation for you [EDITED FOR VULGARITY].
The 100% performance per watt advantage witnessed by the Nehalem servers was the result of 3 factors: triple channel DDR3 IMC, HyperThreading, and Turbo Boost. The fact that Opterons can no longer compete because they lack the raw bandwidth and the "fake Hyper Threaded" cores that performs like a real core.
What would AMD do in this situation? Of course, invalidate an industrially accepted benchmark by substituting it with a "paid third party" benchmark that isn't available to the the public. I wonder what kind of "optimizations" were done?
You know what killed the GPU market? HardOCP.com. That's right, they invalidated the importance of 3DMark by doing game by game FPS analysis. The problem with this approach is that the third party game developers really don't have the energy or resources to make sure that each GPU architecture is properly optimized for. As long as the games run about 30fps on both Nvidia and ATI GPUs, they are happy. What results from this lackluster effort is that there is no Frames per Second differentiation on the GPU vendors, causing prices to free fall and the idiots choosing an architecturally inferior ATI GPU that gave a similar FPS performance.
Same methodology can be applied here. Since the Opterons lack raw memory bandwidth and core count visible to the OS, why not have a benchmark that isn't threaded well enough, and stress on high CPU utilization situations where memory bandwidth and core count matter less? That is what this new benchmark is doing, hiding Opteron architectural difficiencies.
The reason why VMmark stresses high number of VMs is to guage the hardware acceleration of VM switching. Having lesser number of VMs doing high CPU workload helps the worse performer(Opteron) by hiding and masquerading the performance difficiency. Nobody runs 100 VMs on one physical machine, but the VMmark does show you a superior hardware implementation. Nobody really prevents AMD from optimizing their CPUs for VMmark.
Let me be even more brutal with my assessment of your ethics, Johan. Why do you feel you are qualified to do what you do? The people who actually know about hardware are doing the CPU designs themselves in the United States, so the Americans would be the first to know about hardware. When the CPU samples are sent to Taiwan for motherboard design, the Asians would be the second batch of people dealing with hardware. By the time hardware news got to freaking Europe(Fudzilla, The Inq), the information usually was fudged up to the wazoos by Wall Street analysts. Consider yourself lucky that the SEC isn't probing you [EDITED FOR VULGARITY] because you reside in Belgium.
So Johan, my suggestion for you personally, is that you should consider the morality of your publications. In today's day and age, every word you ever say is recorded for eternity. Thirty years from now, do you want people to call you a [EDITED FOR VULGARITY] for pumping an inferior architecture by fudging benchmark results? Of course, I personally run the same risks. What I can guarantee you is that by June of next year, Johan, you [EDITED FOR VULGARITY] would be pumping Via instead. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkAs long as you are not able to discuss technical matters without personal attacks, I won't waste much time on you. Leave the personal attacks out of your comments, and I'll address every concern you have.
But for all other readers, I'll show how shallow your attacks are (but they probably figured that one out a long time ago).
"Why not have a benchmark that isn't threaded well enough"
Yes, Tshen. In your world, Oracle and MS SQL server have few threads. In the realworld however...
Where is the Nehalem vs Shanghai benchmarks? All I see is a chart pumping Opteron 8389. "
All other readers have seen a chart that tries to show how the benchmark reacts to cache size and memory bandwidth. All other readers understand that we only have one Nehalem Xeon, and that is a little hard to show empirically how for example different cache sizes influence the benchmark results.
Lastly, as long as I publish AMD vs Intel comparisons, some people will call me and Anandtech biased. This article shows that Nehalem is between 50 to 80% faster in typical server apps.
For some people that meant that we were biased towards Intel. In your case, we are biased towards AMD if Intel does not win by a huge percentage. For the rest of the world, it just means that we like to make our benches as realworld as possible and we report what we find.
whatthehey - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkAt least we can be grateful he's kind enough to include his IQ in his user name. You know what's interesting? tshen83 isn't exactly a common user name, and he happens to troll elsewhere:
"Thirty years from now, do you want people to call you a fucking asshole...?" No need for you to wait 30 years, tshen; we'll be happy to call you a fucking asshole right now. As the saying goes: if the shoe fits.... Reply
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkFrankly, you make me sad to be an American - as though just because someone is located in Belgium they are not qualified to do anything with hardware? Let's see, Belgium has higher average salaries than the US, so they surely have to be less qualified. And with you as a shining example we can certainly tell EVERYONE in the US is more qualified than in Europe.
To whit, your assertion that HardOCP - or any other site - "killed the GPU market" is absurd in the extreme. The GPU market has seen declining prices because of competition between ATI and NVIDIA, and because the consumer isn't interested in spending $500 every 6-12 months on a new GPU. However, ATI and NVIDIA are hardly dying... though ATI as part of AMD is in a serious bind right now if things don't improve. Thankfully, AMD has helped the CPU market reach a similar point, but with Core i7 we're going back to the old way of things.
Your linking to page nine of this article as though that's somehow proof of bias is even better. Johan shows that Nehalem isn't properly optimized for in ESX 3.5, while Shanghai doesn't have that problem. That's a potential 22% boost for AMD in that test, which we outright admit! Of course, as Johan then points out, there are a LOT of companies that aren't moving to ESX 4.0 for a while yet, so ESX 3.5 scores are more of a look at the current industry.
Again, we know that VMmark does provide one measurement of virtualization performance. Is it a "catch-all"? No more so than the vApus Mark I tests. They both show different aspects of how a server/CPU can perform in a virtualized environment. We haven't even looked at stuff like Linux yet, and you can rest assured that the performance of various CPUs with that environment are all over the place (due to optimizations or lack of optimizations). Anyhow, I expect Nehalem will stretch its legs more in 2-tile and 3-tile testing, even with our supposedly biased test suite.
Since you're so wise, let me ask you something: what would happen if a large benchmark became highly used as a standard measurement of performance in an industry where companies spend billions of dollars? Do you think, just maybe, that places like Intel, Dell, HP, Sun, etc. might do a bunch of extra optimizations targeted solely at improving those scores? No, that could never happen, especially not in the great USA where we alone are qualified to know how hardware works. Certainly NVIDIA and ATI never played any optimization games with 3DMark.
In short, the responses to your comments should give you a good idea of how reasoned your postings are. Cool your jets and learn to show respect and thoughtful posting. I don't know why you're so worried about people showing Intel in the best light possible, but you post on (practically) every Intel or AMD article pumping the joys of Intel, and lambasting AMD.
The fact is, many reviews of Nehalem show inflated benefits for the architecture relative to the real world. VMmark with ESX 4.0 definitely falls into that category - or do you think a range of 14.22@10 tiles with ESX 3.5 Update 4 to 24.24@17 tiles with ESX 4.0 is perfectly normal? I'm not sure anyone actually runs a real workload that mimics VMmark to the point where simply an update to ESX 4.0 would boost performance and virtualization potential by 70%.
Does Intel make the currently better CPU? Of course they do. Does that mean AMD isn't worth a look? Hardly. There are numerous reasons an architecture might perform better/worse. VMmark - or any benchmark - will at best show one facet of performance, and thus what we really need are numerous tests showing how systems truly perform. Reply
tshen83 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkJarred:
Let's not fool each other. Johan's AMD bias is disgusting.
My assertion that HardOCP killed the GPU market is simply trying to show you the effect of invalidating industry standard benchmarks. Architecturally, Nvidia's GPU bigger monolithic cores are far more advanced than ATI's cores right now. In GPGPU applications, it is not even close. The problem with gaming FPS benchmark as I have said is that developers are typically happy once the FPS reaches parity. It does not show architectural superiority.
vApus? There are a ton of questions unanswered.
1. Who wrote the software?(I assume European)
2. Does the software scale linearly? And does the software scale on both AMD and Intel architecuture?
3. Why benchmark 4 Core Virtual machines when we know that VMware doesn't really scale that well themselves in SMP setup?
4. Seriously? Nieuws.be OLAP database? How many real world people run Nieuws.be?
I usually don't respond to Anandtech articles unless the article is disgustingly stupid. I also don't understand why you guys can't accept the fact that Nehalem is in fact 100% performance/watt improved vs the previous generation Xeon. It is backed by data from more than one industry standard benchmark.
Is AMD worth a look today? No, absolutely not. If you are still considering anything AMD today, you are an idiot. (The world is full of idiots) AMD's only chance is if they can release the G34 socket platform within a TDP range that is acceptable before they run out of cash.
Before you call me a troll, remind yourself this: usually the troll is smarter than the people he/she is trolling. So ask yourself this question: did Johan deserve the negative critism? Reply
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkYou criticize every one of his articles, often because I'm not sure your reading comprehension is up to snuff. His "AMD bias" is not disgusting, though I'm quite sure your Intel bias is far worse than his AMD bias. The reason 3DMark has been largely invalidated is that it doesn't show realistic performance - though some of the latest versions scale similarly to some games, at best 3DMark measures 3DMark performance. Similarly, VMmark measures VMmark performance. Unless your workload is the same as VMmark, it doesn't really tell you much.
1 - Who wrote the software? According to the article, "vApus or Virtual Application Unique Stresstest is a stress test developed by Dieter Vandroemme, lead developer of the Sizing Server Lab at the University College of West-Flanders." His being European has nothing to do with anything at all, unless you're a racist, bigoted fool.
2 - 2-tile and 3-tile testing is in the works. It will take time.
3 - Perhaps because there are companies looking for exactly that sort of solution. I guess we should only test situations where VMware performs optimally?
4 - The source of the database is not so critical as the fact that it is a real-world database. Whether Johan uses a DB from Nieuws.be, AnandTech.com, Cnet.com, or some other source isn't particularly meaningful. It is a real setup used outside of benchmarking, and he had access to the site.
I usually don't respond to trolls unless they are disgustingly stupid as well. I don't understand why you can't accept the fact that Nehalem isn't a panacea that fixes all the world's woes. That is backed by the world around us which continues to have all sorts of problems, and a "greener" CPU isn't going to save the environment any more than unplugging millions of cell phone charges that each consume 0.5W of power or less.
AMD is certainly worth a *look* today. Will you actually end up purchasing AMD? That depends largely on your intended use. I have old Athlon 64/X2 systems that do everything that they need to do. For a small investment, you can build a much better AMD HTPC than Intel - mostly because the cheap Intel platform boards are garbage. I'd take a lesser CPU with a better motherboard any day over a top-end CPU with a crappy motherboard. If you want a system for less than $300, the motherboards alone would make me tend towards AMD.
Of course, that completely misses the point that this isn't even remotely related to that market. Servers are in another realm, and features and support are critical. If you have a choice between AMD quad socket and Intel dual socket, and the price is the same, you might want the AMD solution. If you have existing hardware that can be upgraded to Shanghai without changing anything other than the CPU, you might want AMD. If you're buying new, you'd want to look at as much data as possible.
Xeon X5570 still surpasses AMD in the initial tests by over 30%, which is not insignificant. If that extends to 50% or more in 2-tile and 3-tile setups, it's even more in Intel's favor. However, a 30% advantage is hardly out of line with the rest of the computing world. SYSmark 2007 shows the i7 965 beating the Phenom II 955 by 26.6%. Photoshop CS4 shows a 48.7% difference. DivX is 35.3%, xVid is 15.9% pass1 and 65.4% pass2, and WME9 is 25%. 3dsmax is 55.8%, CINEBENCH is 42%, and POV-ray is 65.3%.
Which of those tests is a best indication of true potential for Core i7? Well, ALL OF THEM ARE! What's the best virtualization performance metric out there? Or the best server benchmark out there? They're ALL important and useful. vApus is just one more item to look at, and it still shows a good lead for Intel.
Where is the 100% perf/watt boost compared to last generation? Well, it's in an application where i7 can stretch its eight threaded muscles. Compared to AMD, the performance/watt benefit for an entire system is more like 40% on servers. For QX9770, i7 965 is 32% more perf/watt in Cinebench, or 37.6% in Xvid. I doubt you can find a 100% increase in performance/watt without cherry-picking the benchmark and CPUs in question, but that's what you're already determined to do. That, my friend, is true bias - when you can't even admit that anything from the competition might be noteworthy, you are obviously wearing blinders. Reply
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkUmm based on your two rants this means you have ZERO knowledge working with virtual desktops/terminal servers/virtual applications.
I feel I need to make two corrections.
One: ATI's die size is roughly 75% of Nvidia's, how do you conclude that Nvidia is better? Well honestly you can not because if you scale the performance and had the same die size of Nvidia, then ATI would be killing them.
Second: Majority of enterprise's run AMD and Intel, in fact not till Neh. did Intel really come into the virtualization market. Reply
tshen83 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link"Umm based on your two rants this means you have ZERO knowledge working with virtual desktops/terminal servers/virtual applications. "
Really? Just how did you come up with this revelation?
"One: ATI's die size is roughly 75% of Nvidia's, how do you conclude that Nvidia is better? Well honestly you can not because if you scale the performance and had the same die size of Nvidia, then ATI would be killing them. "
You don't know shit about GPUs.
"Second: Majority of enterprise's run AMD and Intel, in fact not till Neh. did Intel really come into the virtualization market. "
True. That's what I am saying too, if you listened. I said, "no one should be considering AMD today because Nehalem is here". Reply
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkI came to that conclusion based on your incoherent rants.
Why would you say I do not know shit about GPU's? I provided you a fact, your illogical thinking does not change the matter. It comes down to die size and ATI wins performance/DIE. If you would like to argue that claim with then please do so.
Who would consider Neh in todays market? Very few, unless you are a self proclaimed millionaire who crazily spends or needing the extra performance boost in some applications like exchange. Reply
Viditor - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkGuys, it's tshen...nobody over the age of 12 listens to his rants anyway, so don't feed the troll (or ban him if you can...). Reply
leexgx - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkLOL nice rant
3dmark cant be used any more as its not an 3dmark any more its more like an 3d gpu/cpu mark the CPU can sway the total result
AMD cpus have been using dedicated bus that talks to each other cpu socket and has direct access to the ram, allso AMD does have V-amd as well on all amd64 am2 cpus as well as optrons an (baring sempron) Reply
Makaveli - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkYa what is the post all about.
HardOCP killed the GPU market? I don't know about you but I never bought a videocard because of its 3dmark score. It's one benchmark that both companies cater to but is of little importance. Hardocp review method has much more valuable data for me than one benchmark.
Let me ask you this when you are buying a car or anything of siginicant value. Do you not do your homework is one review being either positive or negative enough to drop your hard earned cash?
If so Bestbuy is that way!
As for the rest of your post the personal attacks and childish language cleary show your not even worth taking seriously. Sounds more like the ramblings of a Highschool child who is trying to get attention.
Good day to you sir,
Godspeed Reply
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkYou have no idea what you are talking about. The benchmark software can be downloaded. It is not our fault you are to poor to pay for a product.
The rest I have to say "LOL". Reply
DeepThought86 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkWow, just wow. Reply
GotDiesel - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - link"Yes, this article is long overdue, but the Sizing Server Lab proudly presents the AnandTech readers with our newest virtualization benchmark, vApus Mark I, which uses real-world applications in a Windows Server Consolidation scenario."
spoken with a mouth full of microsoft cock
where are the Linux reviews ?
not all of us VM with windows you know..
JohanAnandtech - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkA minimum form of politeness would be appreciated, but I am going to assume your were just dissapointed.
The problem is that right now the calling circle benchmark runs half as fast on Linux as it does on Windows. What is causing Oracle to run slower on Linux than on Windows is a mystery even to some of the experienced DBA we have spoken. We either have to replace that benchmark with an alternative (probably Sysbench) or find out what exactly happened.
When you construct a virtualized benchmark it is not enough just to throw in a few benchmarks and VMs, you really have to understand the benchmark thoroughly. There are enough halfbaken benchmarks already on the internet that look like a Swiss cheese because there are so many holes in the methodology. Reply
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkPage 4: vApus Mark I: the choices we made
"vApus mark I uses only Windows Guest OS VMs, but we are also preparing a mixed Linux and Windows scenario."
Building tests, verifying tests, running them on all the servers takes a lot of time. That's why the 2-tile and 3-tile results are not yet ready. I suppose Linux will have to wait for Mark II (or Mark I.1). Reply
mino - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkWhat you did so far is great. No more words needed.
What I would like to see is vApus Mark I "small" where you make the tiles smaller, about 1/3 to 1/4 of your current tiles.
Tile structure shall remain simmilar for simplicity, they will just be smaller.
When you manage to have 2 different tile sizes, you shall be able to consider 1 big + 1 small tile as one "condensed" tile for general score.
Having 2 reference points will allow for evaluating "VM size scaling" situations. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Sunday, May 24, 2009 - linkCan you elaborate a bit? What do you menan by "1/3 of my current tile?" . A tile = 4 VMs. are you talking about small mem footprint or number of VCPUs?
Are you saying we should test with a Tile with small VMs and then test afterwards with the large ones? How do you see such "VM scaling" evaluation? Reply
mino - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkThanks for response.
1/3 I mean smaller VM's. Mostly from the load POW. Probably 1/3 load would go for 1/2 memory footprint.
The point being that currently the is only a single datapont with a specific load-size per tile/per VM.
By "VM scaling" I would like to see what effect woul smaller loads have on overal performance.
I suggest 1/3 or 1/4 the load to get a measurable difference while remaining within reasonable memory/VM scale.
In the end, if you get simmilar overal performance from 1/4 tiles, it may not make sense to include this in future.
Even then the information that your benchmark results can be safely extrapolated to smaller loads would be of a great value by itself. Reply
mino - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkEh, that last text of mime looks like a nice gibberish...
Clarification nneded:
To be able to run more tiles/box smaller memory footprint is a must.
With smaller mem footprint, smaller DB's are a must.
The end results may not be directly comparable but shall be able to give some reference point, corectly interpreted
Please let me know if this makes sense to you.
There are multiple dimensions to this. I may be easily on the imaginery branch :) Reply
ibb27 - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkCan we have a chance to see benchmarks for Sun Virtualbox which is Opensource? Reply
winterspan - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - linkThis test is misleading because you are not using the latest version of VMware that supports Intel's EPT. Since AMD's version of this is supported in the older version, the test is not at all a fair representation of their respective performance. Reply
Zstream - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkCan someone please perform a Win2008 RC2 Terminal Server benchmark? I have been looking everywhere and no one can provide that.
If I can take this benchmark and tell my boss this is how the servers will perform in a TS environment please let me know. Reply
JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 22, 2009 - linkMost of the time, the number of sessions on TS are limited by the amount of memory. Can you give some insight in what you are running inside a session? If it is light on CPU or I/O resources, sizing will be based on the amount of memory per session only. Reply
dragunover - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkwould be interesting if this was done on desktop CPU's with price / performance ratios Reply
jmke - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linknope, that would not be interesting at all. You don't want desktop motherboards, RAM or CPUs in your server room;
nor do you run ESX at home. So there's no point to test performance of desktop CPUs. Reply
simtex - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkWhy so harsh, virtualization will eventually become a part of desktops users everyday life.
Imagine, tabbing between different virtualization, like you do in your browser. You might have a secure virtualization for your webapplications, a fast virtualization for your games. Another for streaming music and maybe capturing television. All on one computer, which you seldom have to reboot because everything runs virtualized. Reply
Azsen - Monday, May 25, 2009 - linkWhy would you run all those applications on your desktop in VMs? Surely they would just be separate application processes running under the one OS. Reply
flipmode - Thursday, May 21, 2009 - linkSpeaking from the perspective of how the article can be the most valuable, it is definitely better off to stick to true server hardware for the time being.
For desktop users, it is a curiosity that "may eventually" impart some useful data. The tests are immediately valuable for servers and for current server hardware. They are merely of academic curiosity for desktop users on hardware that will be outdated by the time virtualization truly becomes a mainstream scenario on the desktop.
And I do not think he was being harsh, I think he was just being as brief as possible. Reply


text:
Mystery After the Health Care Ruling: Which States Will Refuse Medicaid Expansion?
The Supreme Court ruling allows states to decline the Medicaid expansion included in the Affordable Care Act without losing federal money for their existing Medicaid programs. If the 26 states that challenged the law opt out, an estimated 8.5 million fewer people would be covered by Medicaid.
June 28: This post has been updated.
See our interactive map of how health reform could expand Medicaid in each state.
For many people without insurance, a key question raised by the Supreme Court's decision today to uphold the Affordable Care Act is whether states will decline to participate in the law's big Medicaid expansion.
Although the court upheld the law's mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance, the justices said the act could not force states to expand Medicaid to millions by threatening to withhold federal funding.
Republican leaders of some states already are saying they are inclined to say thanks, but no thanks.
Tom Suehs, the Texas Health and Human Services Executive commissioner whose state could cover an additional 1.8 million people by 2019, praised the court for giving "states more ability to push back against a forced expansion of Medicaid. The court clearly recognized that the Affordable Care Act put states in the no-win situation of losing all their Medicaid funding or expanding their programs knowing that they would face billions of dollars in extra costs down the road."
The act, signed by President Obama in March 2010, required "states to extend Medicaid coverage to non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or about $30,700 for a family of four," according to a March 2012 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. The extension was expected to cover nearly 16 million people by 2019, one of the law's main ways of reducing the ranks of the uninsured.
The 26 states that challenged the health care law together account for an estimated 8.5 million of those who would benefit from Medicaid's expansion by 2019, more than half the total, according to ProPublica's analysis of an Urban Institute report prepared for the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Stanford University health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya wrote on Stanford's medical school blog that some states may opt out. "Cash-strapped states will almost certainly consider this option since they will ultimately be on the hook for financing at least a portion of this expansion," he wrote. "If enough states decide to deny the Medicaid expansion, this may substantially reduce the ability of ACA [the Affordable Care Act] to expand insurance coverage."
Medicaid is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to the poor and disabled, with states putting up a portion of the money and the federal government funding the rest. Each state's matching percentage is based on per capita income.
According to a separate Kaiser foundation report, "Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups."
Under the law, the federal government would cover nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion from 2014-22, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
"Specifically, the federal government will assume 100 percent of the Medicaid costs of covering newly eligible individuals for the first three years that the expansion is in effect (2014-16). Federal support will then phase down slightly over the following several years, and by 2020 (and for all subsequent years), the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering these individuals. According to CBO, between 2014 and 2022, the federal government will pay $931 billion of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, while states will pay roughly $73 billion, or 7 percent."
States that challenged the law argued that it was coercive to require them to either expand Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding, a practical impossibility given the size of the program in most states. The court ruled that while it was constitutional for Congress to offer states money to expand Medicaid, it could not take away funding for their existing program if they declined, according to SCOTUSblog.
Immediately after the ruling, some Republican state officials said they were inclined to reject the new federal money, although there has been no deadline set for doing so.
In Missouri, according to The Associated Press, "House Majority Leader Tim Jones says the Republican-led Legislature will not consider the expansion. Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called the Medicaid expansion a 'break-the-bank provision.'"
The Birmingham Business Journal said that "opting out of the Medicaid expansion seems increasingly likely for Alabama — though Medicaid officials said they were still reviewing the court's ruling."
After all, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said, "The health care law is an overreach by the federal government that creates more regulation, bureaucracy, and a dramatic increase in costs to taxpayers."
And South Dakota's attorney general, Marty Jackle, was likewise blunt: "I am relieved that the Act's Medicaid expansion has been declared unconstitutional and has been significantly limited by the Court."
That said, rhetoric does not always translate to action. Many Republican governors said they would not accept funds from the 2009 stimulus package, but they ended up taking the money in the end. Three governors, in Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, turned down money to build a high-speed rail line. Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford tried to turn down federal education stimulus money, but his state Supreme Court rejected that. And former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rejected some state energy funding, but her Legislature overruled her.
ProPublica reporter Michael Grabell contributed to this report.
32 comments
I feel like the biggest story, here, is how many people have no clue about…well, anything.
We could start with the simple fact that health insurance is unrelated to healthcare, except in their positions in the dictionary. There's the problem with people calling it socialism for the government to package up and sell us to the insurance companies (it's obscene, but not socialist).
There's also the odd idea, in the last paragraph, that Presidents have the authority to repeal anything. If Romney were in power, he can write a bill and propose it to Congress. That's it.
Not to dive too far off-topic, but the problem in this country isn't insurance. It's that a broken arm sets you back twelve thousand bucks for some C-student to do what a random Cub Scout would do for free: Set the bone and tell you to buy aspirin.
Why? The AMA says so, limits the supply of doctors, and nobody can argue because everybody has insurance to cover the cost. When a doctor can lose his license for getting caught offering someone a discount, but is protected if he operates on the wrong lung, there's a problem deeper than "the uninsured." When the guy missing his good lung sues, the doctors whine that it's driving up their costs to pay for malpractice insurance. (Hint: Maybe doctors should be getting stuff right, rather than insuring against mistakes and blaming the victim.)
Drive the costs down by eliminating the parasitic entities and crappy doctors, and we can all afford healthcare except for the most horribly ill. Those people, we can put on a government program with my blessing.
Instead, the insurance companies just got a sweetheart deal of an unlimited supply of healthy customers to pay their bills for no work and at no cost.
One thing is baffling me, though: Since the insurance industry is now working at the behest of the government (because it's forcing us to become customers), are they obligated to respect the Bill of Rights? Is it possible that we now have a right, for example, to "confront our accusers" when our rates go up for whatever reason? Can they be prevented from charging different rates (discriminating) based on race or religious belief, despite actuarial tables telling them that some group has a higher risk for some problem?
Probably not, but they should be. They'll be governing us at least as much as Washington does. And without an obligation to protect our rights, they won't.
John, the insurance companies, prior to the ACA, had the right to deny YOU health insurance for what ever reason they wanted to. Now they don't. Furthermore, a high percentage of their premiums have to be spent on health care - not administration - if they have to spend 90% on health care then it doesn't do them a whole lot of good to raise premiums, does it? Unless they really have to.
So, rather than spend all your time making up negatives that just don't exist, try to find ways to improve the ACA just as Social Security and Medicare were improved over time.
Like all programs induced, created, intiated or otherwise a product of our govt this will produce costs, waste, fraud and restrictions beyond anything you have imagined. Three programs that fit the above are Social Security (of which I am a recipient), Medicare (of which will be a joke before I die), and SNAP the food stamp program that presently "SNAP parties" are being held in senior centers to explain to them how they can qualify for a SNAP card no matter what their circumstances. If you really do not think this govt is intruding obscenly into your life now, please talk to me in 10yrs.
Charles, problems with SNAP but not with the copious subsidies given to the affluent? Perhaps we can start by eliminating the $131 billion/yr subsidies to affluent home owners. 3/4th of the home mortgage interest deduction goes to those who make more than $108,000 per year; half goes to those who make more than $151,000/yr, and 31% to those making more than $260,000/yr.
Nor does this count the $31B per year subsidy given by the deduction for residential property tax, or $50B/yr for exclusion of housing capital gains.
And everyone ought to get the same subsidies for health insurance that businesses get, right? Those now come to $177B per year, and will be a trillion dollars over the next five years. That's about $945 per employee per year.
So tell me again about government intrusion….
ARIZONA—but I don't think most people will stand for it. Whoever does will lose doctors to other states, and so much more. The governor said it was such a burden on our state. And then decided that adults without children were an easy target to deny medicaid coverage to. So I think she'd like the whole welfare state to come back. Young women would have to give birth to get health coverage. When in fact I believe the main reason she and her puppet-masters wanted this was to whine about expanding medicaid coverage for soley political reasons.
I'm sure her head is spinning with her latest new propaganda spin.
I am questioning which way the newly-admitted tax will be treated on our individual income tax returns? Will it be treated the same way the Social Security TAX is treated (as something that NO INDIVIDUAL can DEDUCT) or will it be treated as another cost that can be itemized, thus being deducted from income before calculating taxes due, just like mortgage interest?
The administration had claimed it was not a tax when they got it passed, yet used that as a trump-card argument when things got rough in the Supreme Court arguments. Now that it was upheld only as a TAX, which way will it be treated on our tax returns?
Since this consequence was not planned at the inception, I suspect the Supreme Court just gave us a new itemized deduction for those who can benefit from itemizing.
How will this possible 'wrinkle' impact the tax collection that is now further burdened with paying for the added costs?
"If Romney were in power, he can write a bill and propose it to Congress. That's it."
You sure? I recall a certain (recent) President refusing to prosecute/deport certain illegals "Because it's the right thing to do." If Romney wins, he could just as easily refuse to prosecute people who don't abide by the mandate "Because it's the right thing to do."
JJ, interest question. I read on the Supreme Court decision today, that you pay the Tax to IRS as an Income Tax. Wonder if thats true and perhaps it is questionable RIght Now as to any deductions on it. OR if it is just a strait Income of Earnings, which could harm some people if they are on any "maxiumum earnings" plan like Medicaid.
Interesting to search out.
I hope the people who will not benefit from Medicare expansion will remember this and get rid of the fools who are being spiteful.
I will personally cheer to see the gop thrown out of office, I hope it will be this year and every year after until there are very few gop in any kind of office.
Unfortunately for us, Capitalism is almost dead, but doesn't know it yet.
And since WW II, Socialism equals Communism.
The Capitalism we still have is Financial Crony Capitalism with a strong flavor of Southern Plantation Capitalism.
So when a state refuses the additional Medicaid, what happens to the people who would have been eligible?
They are forced by the mandate to purchase over-priced under-insurance and spend upwards of 30% of their household budget when they are already unable to keep food on the table, heat in the house or even a house.
ACA has been a farce from the beginning.
We need Single Payer and we need it NOW!
George, John is right.
You stated "if they have to spend 90% on health care then it doesn't do them a whole lot of good to raise premiums." Total fallacy. First of all, it's 80%. Second that 80% only has to be spent on anything the insurers can get defined as "clinical services or activities that improve health care quality." So it's actually a 'cost plus' system and HHS has already approved as "activities that improve health care" such things as: intrusive 'health care managers' that deny medically prescribed procedures; additional administrative functions to "detect fraud" - just a way around the requirement to stop recision; development and implementation of new diagnostic codes used for claims denial, etc.
So for every $1.00 the insurers can get HHS to approve, they can charge you $1.20.
There are no cost controls on insurance premiums. The most HHS can do is 'send it back to the insurance companies for review.' Then the states are in charge of cost control. The problem there is that it's a revolving door between the state HHS and the insurance companies themselves.
The only answer is Single Payer. The Obamabots who what to give us their over-simplified platitudes, vote the corporate servants back in and then go relax on the couch thinking they have done their part are the worst enemies of needed change.
We all need to be working right now to get Single Payer.
No, those who fall in the 101-133% of FPL will receive federal subsidies to buy health insurance if their state does not participate. It is a refundable, advance credit that will likely cover the entire cost of their insurance. They'll still be better off with the ACA than without it.
I agree we need single payer NOW!
Many Republican run states will loudly turn the Medicaid expansion down but then almost all will quietly come around to accepting it. Their local governments and hospitals will force them to do so.
See, right now we all (as taxpayers and as payers for private insurance) are paying for the medical needs of the uninsured — usually at the highest possible cost. (It costs far more for hospitalization and amputaion of a gangarenous foot or lifetime dialysis, than, say, 10 years of care working with someone with diabetes to prevent foot problems or kidney failure.) For example, Bernalillo County, NM spends $90 million tax money each year to pay for the ER and hospital costs for uninsured. Most all of that money could be saved if almost everyone had some form of insurance coverage.
And the hospitals, while they get additional federal funds as well as state and local tax money to cover care still have to charge patients who have insurance more to make up the difference. Insurers pay the higher rates because they have to — but they in turn have to charge higher premiums to meet those costs. So we pay for those who can't — or won't.
John, a lot of what you see as problems are addressed in the law. You are right about one thing: the crappy doctors (and hospitals and medical equipment makers, etc) are a big part of driving up overall health care costs.
Doctors can't lose their licenses for offering discounts; they may tell you they would to get out of giving you a break but it isn't true. Doctors are fighting very hard against being held responsible for the wretched quality of care some provide. All that huff about "Tort Reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" is just not wanting to be held responsible for preventable medical errors that kill more than 200,000 Americans each year and take an unimaginable toll in maining and agony. It also runs up medical costs tremendously. Many doctors don't care because they profit from their errors. They bill you for the procedure and then they bill for all the care needed to try to fix the effects of their mistakes. That is being addressed somewhat in the ACA. There will be penalties for hospitals who don't reduce the hospital acquired infections and others care caused conditions. If you could get rid of the 5-15% of doctors who screw up repeatedly we would be a lot better off but they have a lot of political clout and are very self protective. The error prone also lie to other doctors about the claims against them so that the others will feel under attack for "nothing" also.
There really isn't a great shortage of doctors overall. The problem is that too many choose to go into the highly lucrative specialities rather than the more difficult but lower paid primary care. The ACA is working on that. There is loan repayment for those who go into primary care. It has opened up more residencies in primary care areas and it is working on increasing pay for primary care in Medicare/Medicaid. Three of the 4 new Med Schools opened in 2009 have a focus on primary care. That provides more training slots.
Since 50 million people DON"T have insurance you can't say having people self pay will drive down costs. Nor can most people who need care afford to pay for what is needed even at half today's costs. What happens is that people won't see a doctor if they think they can do without until things are so bad they have to. Not being plugged into some system backfires. When nearly half of the people who have diabetes are not even diagnosed we have a problem.
The only way any insurance, public or private, can work is for everyone to pay in and those that need a lot of care are covered. If you don't need care you still have the security of knowing that you will be able to get needed care if you do. Health care insurance is designed to have a prepayment function to cover normal "maintenence" care like checkups and prevention services because that is the most cost effective way to have a healthy population. It's no accident that nations with systematized health care, whether totally paid through taxes, partially government subsidized, or mostly private insurance, have longer life spans and better health outcomes than we in the US do.
re your Bill of Rights: the ACA provides for review of insurers raising rates too much. There will be an federal Ombudsman office in each state to help people deal with any problems with insurers. Insurers are not permitted to charge different rates based on health status nor for any perceived higher risk of anyone in any group. That's what community rating is all about. Insurers will be highly regulated.
Rob and CC,
You ask a good question about what happens to patients in states that opt out of the expansion. The answer is no one really knows—for the moment. They almost certainly would not be subject to a penalty for going without insurance, but it's unclear if they would be eligible for federal subsidies. Because the law was crafted anticipating that the Medicaid expansion was mandatory, it envisioned subsidies beginning at 133% of FPL. I've asked HHS for a clear answer on this, but I have not received it yet.
All the red states will opt out of medicaid expansion and any other part of it they're nasty enough to try. TX and LA are the two I've heard about so far.
Mr. Ornstein, thanks for the clarification.
Everyone is somewhat ill-informed, including myself, about what's actually in the law - because it is so obtuse (20,000 + pages??).
I try to follow this stuff pretty closely:
But wishful thinking seems to rule - George and Rob are good examples. They are clearly well intentioned, but the fact that so much is hidden in the fine print, while the politicians keep raking in campaign contributions until at least 2014 seems to be the reason for the secrecy and spin. There can be no other reason for that 4 year delay.
Sam, it's actually advertisement that'll get you booted, but to me, it amounts to the same thing, in my eyes. You can charge what you like, but don't let anybody know about it. I was told that by lawyers, mind you, not doctors. If I can track down a citation, I will, but notice when the last time you saw a doctor's rates made public.
As for what situations the law treats, none of them appeared to be treated in the draft that I read. It says that you can't be denied coverage, but it doesn't forbid, say, charging more because, say, American Indians are more prone to alcoholism or black men are more susceptable to diabetes. It implies that it won't happen anymore because of all the healthy people forced to pay in, but there's no obligation except the moral, unless a late draft changed things.
By the number of doctors, I wasn't implying a shortage, but I am suggesting that more doctors would demand lower prices to keep them in business, and that some very good medical students are denied licenses to keep the number profitable. It's a commodity business, for the most part, with most people treating most doctors are interchangeable.
Jason, that's not repealing. To repeal a law is to strike it from the books, by passing a new law that replaces or nullifies it. If Romney means he won't enforce the law, then he should say that to show that he actually knows what the President is allowed to do.
(However, enforcement is delegated to the IRS, so even then, it relies on positioning people sympathetic to his "ideals" and making theh case against the few people who would benefit from the program, rather than a guarantee. Also, the IRS—not directly beholden to the President—is getting half a billion dollars to track down people who dare to be healthy without insurance. Could Romney get away with insisting they not use the money to bring money into the Treasury? That's not very fiscally conservative…)
Everybody, by the way, should head over to supremecourt.gov and pull down a copy of the decision (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius), and at least read through the summary. It's fascinating stuff, both good and bad, and there's very little of what you probably think happened.
One specific problem I have with the analysis is that the Justices appear to believe they have an obligation to give laws every benefit in finding them Constitutional, which is how the mandate and penalty system mutated into a tax: The only way the law is within the powers of Congress is if it's taxation. Personally, I think that's wrong-headed and directly opposed to the concept of checks and balances, but hey, I wasn't appointed for life.
Incidentally, I should clarify that I'm against this law because, as I read it, it's the worst of all worlds, combining awful features from other bad systems. Rather than fixing the industry so that insurance isn't a necessity for survival, they're encoding the status quo into law and hoping that the force of law will make us healthier.
I would have supported just about any alternative. This, though, is a mess, and sets any real progress back decades.
For those who don't understand what the ACA is about…here's a synopsis of the bill:
1. Lets millions of young adults stay on parent's insurance until age 26
2. Ends insurance company power to cap the amount of care a person can receive in their lifetime
3. Stops insurance companies from canceling coverage when someone gets sick
4. Lowers the cost of care of those on Medicare and helps seniors save money on their medication (already doing that)
5. Requires insurance companies to cover preventive services like mammograms free of charge
6. Strengthens and protects Medicare by increasing penalties for fraud
7. Stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions
8. Ends insurance company power to jack up rates without justification
9. Provides Americans with rebates from insurers who spend too much on CEO bonuses and ads
10. Gives tax credits to small business owners so they can afford to offer quality health care for their employees
11. Builds and improves hundreds of community health centers
12. Gives hard-working Americans tax credits so they can afford insurance premiums in 2014
13. Ends discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014 AND
14. Prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men and overcharging those who need care the most beginning in 2014.
It all looks like a win-win situation to me….too bad most people don't see it that way.
Didi: Thanks! As usual, we have a plethora of opinions posted here, but your post clarifies what WAS accomplished through the wildly contentious process in passing the ACA - despite the efforts of the opposition (including blue dogs) to kill it. What irks me the most are those who continue to insist that we're Obamabots if we didn't hold out for single payer. Utterly unrealistic since anyone with functioning synapses realizes that line in the sand would have tanked the whole thing.
Legislation is subject to modification. This "Obamabot", along with millions of others, will continue to work towards getting single payer, as well as fixing other numerous flaws in this huge landmark piece of legislation. An instantaneous "perfect world" resides only in the minds of those who haven't enough legwork to humble them.
I still think Texas and Arizona will opt out on Medicaid expansion. They both have huge minority underclass populations and mean-spirited track records.
JJ's question about tax treatments is interesting. I hope Congress takes this opportunity to straighten out the tax situation (but I am not hopeful). There seems little sense in collecting taxes for health care with one hand and giving out deductions with the other. The cost of tax-exempt health benefits to employers in FY11 will be $177 billion, and it will be a trillion dollars over the next five years. This works out to $1250 per employed American, or $564 per capita per year. And those who are self-employed get only a fraction of the benefit, which is grossly unfair.
If employers and their workers are getting this taxpayer subsidy, then everyone should too. In a 2009 op-ed in USA Today, Mitt Romney wrote that the cost of his insurance reforms in Massaschusetts was, after savings, about $350 million/yr. That works out to $53 per state resident per year, which hardly sounds onerous.
Didi, I can't speak for anybody else, but there are two reasons I don't see it that way, personally.
First, health insurance is NOT health care. Lack of access to insurance isn't the problem. Inaccessible and poor care is.
Second, this may be the intention of the law, but it's hard to figure out how it's implemented in page after page after page in the law, which I recommend reading (in parts over time, obviously) to see how convoluted and unclear it is. Experience in this country shows, that unless it's stated explicitly in one sentence, the intent will be avoided through loopholes and doublespeak. I'd be willing to bet this bill was drafted originally by insurance companies and their lobbyists.
The real problem is that only one of your points (#11) solves a REAL problem. The rest of them (try to) treat the abuses of an inessential, inherently abusive industry, insurance. And insurance is only necessary because care is priced out of everybody's budget (because doctors are irresponsible and overpriced, fast food is absurdly cheaper than vegetables, and/or Americans are litigious cretins, depending on who you ask—I favor the first two and include the third for completeness).
Again, here's the health care legislation we really need: "Provide health care competitively, if you're trained to do so." Fits on a bumper sticker (if inelegantly), so there's no miscommunication, and it solves thirteen out of fourteen of your points by removing the need for insurance.
John, I partly disagree—insurance *is* a problem. If you're ever tried to live without health insurance, you quickly find out that the care available to you is quite limited. A simple visit to a doctor can easily cost over $150, you settle for whatever medications are cheaply priced, you suffer in pain with conditions for which the medication is too costly or diagnostic tests too expensive (which usually means almost *all* tests). Try going to a doctor and describing some nebulous set of symptoms, and ask them to help you, except they can't do any testing at all.
So people do without.
Watch this video about Remote Area Medical, a volunteer healthcare charity:
It all sounds so wonderful - Utopia…I can have all I want for a mere fraction of the "actual" cost of my care - or for "free".
I am entitled to all I want, deserve all I want, and should get all I want. Let's throw in "for Free" because it sounds so good. And, if I don't get exactly what I want - it is someone elses fault. What a wonderful concept.
Insurance companies will be forced to "do the right thing", the rich will be forced to pay their "fair" share and everyone will be happy….once they get used to this idea of free.
Heck, I can get hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care for a mere fraction of the cost (insurance). Insurance companies are in business to make money, not b/c they care for us. It's like one giant ponzi scheme.
America has been living a lie for far to long. We are a nation of debtors - wanting, no deserving more than we are willing to WORK for. So we borrow and borrow and borrow.
In this country, we used to pay with cash. If we didn't have the money - we saved for it. Every family member didn't have a car, computer, tv, cell phone and/or credit card. We got special gifts at Christmas and our birthdays - now we buy for no other reason than we WANT.
All that money for want comes from somewhere - look at the NATIONAL DEBT. The government doesn't owe that - WE DO. We are America!
Take every last pennie from the 1% and it won't make a dent in the National Debt.
Life isn't fair and things aren't free. We aren't all exactly the same and someone has to pay for everything. There are no free rides America.
Why do we buy into the continual lies that politicians spew? They tell us what we want to hear. Lie, cheat and steal and we "overlook" that because we want - what we want and maybe this time we will get it!
All ACA, AKA Obamacare, will accomplish is that the Fiscal Cliff will appear sooner rather than later.
The Empire of Amerika has proved that the road to Welfare and Warfare leads inevitably to Insolvency at the National level.
Europe has proved that the "Cradle to Grave" Sociaist State also leads to National Insolvency.
The Empire has long since gone past "the point of no return."
Look to the 1%ers. The bottom half is full of Doctors, the upper half owns the medical/healthcare/insurance industry. Most are members of the GOP. They don't want Obama care because they will loss money somewhere. Namely customers that have to pay over inflated rates. The plan would insure people up to the 30k earning level. Read the numbers, that would cost them a hell of a lot of money. Why because over 50% of the bottom 80% fall in that group.
The pie-in-the-sky list you post is straight from BHO campaign lit - not noted for its accuracy or context.
There are already many carveouts and exemptions for a variety of groups and special interests. To say nothing of the fact that people can opt out for about $55/month at the low end and remain uncovered.
Those people, when they get sick or injured, will still be a load on the system that others pay for.
Geez. Get a clue.
Set down the Kool-Aid. The benefits you mention are over-stated and would only apply if we had single-payer.
What we now face is the prospect of rapacious health insurers, who answer to shareholders not patients, getting 30-40 million new customers.
Many of whom had been their clients previously and detest their value system.
Insurers who are generous political donors, and will now further cement their role running much of health care policy in this country.
This is awful news. And diverts us from a better goal of health care available to anyone, without profit or politics in the way.
David, to clarify, I'm saying that insurance is a (poor) solution to a deeper problem. You even say it yourself: Just gazing upon a doctor costs more money than I have in my pocket right now.
The difference is that you're assuming that's the case because it must be, and that insurance is therefore critical. I see it as an abomination and insurance is just a "patch," on the other hand, to the cost problem. So if some people can't afford insurance, the right solution isn't to make insurance affordable (perhaps we should get insurance to cover our insurance premiums…), but remove the forces that make insurance such an artificial necessity.
Appropriately for a flawed medical industry, the ACA treats symptoms our previous "treatments" have created, rather than treating the disease, in other words.
You people are stupid the president can stop this anytime he wants with his dictator power called executive order which has same power of law. A president has the power to make any laws he wants without congress. Heck Obama is first president that has the power to declare war without congress and with ndaa bill he signed into law while you were celebrating the new year the goverment has the power to detain and hold anyone even kill them and torture them without trial if you combine all the powers of the patriot act with it Obama is bushes twin brother when it comes to destroying the constitution and Romney won't care about the constitution either. These brain dead morons you keep electing are nothing but terrorists.
if everyone with income between zero%-400% fpl could the subsidies in the health law, all states could repeal their medicaid laws,
Commenting on this story is closed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dr. Eric Mason, church co-founder and lead pastor in Philadelphia
Dr. Eric Mason's multi-ethnic church embraces the unreached mission field of inner-city Philadelphia. Eric's hope is to develop disciples that are able to minister in the culture and help new disciples grow in God's Word and for His glory.
DTS Stories More stories
More from Chapel Chapel Archive


text:
CYCLISTS taking part in a road race near Worcester will be helping raise money for children caught up a war torn Syria.
The race, set to feature 80 veteran cyclists aged 40 and over, is being organised by members of Velo Club Sevale, the Malvern road cycling club.
It takes place next Sunday (April 6) and is being promoted by the League of Veteran Racing Cyclists.
The 15-mile route will take in Bransford, Alfrick and Suckley.
Participants will be supporting the UNICEF appeal for the Children of Syria with all prize money plus proceeds from catering and donations going to the charity.


text:
A POLICEMAN accused of assaulting a night porter at a hotel in Blunsdon in January has pleaded not guilty.
PC Gary Tester, of Weston-super-Mare, appeared before Swindon Magistrates Court today accused of assault by beating.
The court heard how the 43-year-old officer allegedly beat Terry Sullivan, a night receptionist at the Premier Inn Swindon North, at around 1.30am on January 19.
Nick Barr, who represented the Crown in the case, said that the first officers at the scene, PC Hunt and PC Russell of Wiltshire Police, were in the area when they were approached by Terry.
Mr Barr said: "He complained to them that a couple in room 108 were causing a noise disturbance."
The officers went to investigate the incident and allegedly found Tester and his partner intoxicated.
When PC Hunt and PC Russell said they were from Wiltshire Police the couple said that they were both police officers too.
PC Hunt and PC Russell asked the couple to keep the noise down before they left.
A while later, Tester allegedly went down to reception and attacked Terry Sullivan.
Mr Barr said: "After the officers left the defendant came down to reception and came around behind the desk into the staff area and then grabbed him by the shirt and said words to the effect of 'what are you going to do now that they're gone'."
A couple of hours later the police called the hotel to ensure that there had been no further incident since PC Hunt and PC Russell had attended the room, at which point Terry said there had been a further incident and two more police officers were sent to the scene.
Tester, who was represented by John Quinn, denied the charge.
During the hearing, there was some debate about the number of witnesses in the case, and whether it was necessary for all four police officers who attended the hotel that night to give evidence at trial.
But after considerable deliberation, the magistrates decided that the police officers' evidence was pertinent to the case and that their evidence should be included.
David Poots, chairman of the magistrates, said: "We believe that the demeanour of the defendant is relevant to the case and the fact that the first two officers on hand felt they need to ring back to check everything was alright does demonstrate to us that there were ongoing concerns."
Tester will appear before Chippenham Magistrates Court on August 4.
His trial is expected to last three days.


text:
We're super proud to be accepted as one of the August Candidates for All Terrain's Grant program. Help us win a $1,000 grant by voting for Schooba on our profile page below. They do allow multiple voting, so refresh that page and do it again! And again. And again. And again. And again. And again … times infinity.
Posts Tagged 'at cares'
Vote for us … a thousand times!Published August 2, 2011 Uncategorized 1 Comment
Tags: all terrain, at cares, grant, schooba, SCUBA


text:
Princess Tiana Couture Fantasy Articulated Doll Collection
Hand-painted vinyl, articulated joints for maximum posing. Authentically detailed ball gowns accessorized with tiaras, jewelry, shoes and gloves.
Measure 12" H
From The Ashton-Drake Galleries
- Price:
- s&s◇
Disney's first-ever African-American Princess character, Princess Tiana, made her debut in the 2009 animated film "The Princess and the Frog," to charm young and old alike. Now we're delighted to offer the Couture Fantasy Collection as an exquisite Ashton-Drake Disney Princess Tiana collector treasure! Relive Tiana's romantic fantasy as she's swept off her feet (and into the French Quarter) by her dark and handsome prince, with these beautifully costumed, fully articulated dolls that are a joy to pose! Start your collection with Issue One, Bayou Wedding Dress. Soon your collection will be completed with Issue Two, Princess Tiana Blue Ball Gown. Each issue will arrive separately.‡
This Disney Couture Fantasy Doll Collection is handcrafted in vinyl with full articulation that allows you to pose these 12" collectible doll masterpieces in a multitude of graceful poses, Hand-painted features capture Tiana's expressive, lovely face. The two distinctive gowns that Tiana wears in the film are authentically recreated with the finest materials and enhanced with FREE fit-for-a-princess accessories that include tiaras, sparkling jewelry, matching shoes and more. These stunning Disney Princess dolls are sure to be in high demand, so if you want to add Tiana's beauty and elegance to your collection, order now!
- Our first-ever Disney Princess African-American dolls featuring Princess Tiana from "The Princess and the Frog," in original designs brought to you by The Ashton-Drake Galleries
- Both Princess Tiana collectible dolls in the collection are handcrafted in vinyl with expressive, hand-painted features and full articulation for a multitude of poses
- The two distinctive gowns that Tiana wears in the film - the Lilypad Wedding Dress and the Blue Ball Gown - are authentically reproduced in the finest of fabrics and trims
- FREE accessories for each Disney Princess Tiana doll's ensemble include tiaras, sparkling jewelry, matching shoes and other fit-for-a-princess accessories
- Measure 12" H; 30.4 cm H
- Reserves the entire collectible Couture Fantasy Disney Princess Doll Collection in your name so you never risk an increase on the price of other collectible dolls in this collection, or miss a single issue of this collection
- ‡Each issue will be shipped to you for your review, about one every month or two (pending availability) at the same low issue price and charged to the credit card on which your order was placed. No need to order each one separately
- You may cancel your collection at any time with no obligation
- "Issue One - Bayou Wedding Dress," will be followed by "Issue Two - Princess Tiana Blue Ball Gown" to complete your collection
Fabrics, patterns and accessories may vary slightly.
©2010 The Ashton-Drake Galleries