Re: very low end i5 performance

Thanks for the heads up.  Wonder if IBM have checked this in the Lab or if 
the poor performance in that configuration is only on an 8xx system and 
not a 520.  If the performance is that bad on a 520 there's obviously 
something seriously wrong with the 3 disk RAID setup and if they can't 
improve on that they shouldn't be selling systems that way.

...Neil




rob@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
2004/10/13 09:38



To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: very low end i5 performance






Neil,

Talked to my business partner last night at our LUG.  He had a customer 
that bought an 8xx box with a three disk raid set.  Very minimal usage. 
Testing and development in WAS.  8 second response time.  Tried memory and 

everything else.  Added a fourth drive.  Dropped down to subsecond 
immediately.  "Leaves of three, let it be."

Rob Berendt
-- 
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





Neil Palmer/DPS <neilp@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
10/12/2004 05:10 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Fax to

Subject
Re: very low end i5 performance






Haven't actually run or seen one with a 3 disk RAID config.  Of course I'd 


much prefer 4 disks with the parity striping spread over 4 arms instead of 


the 2 arms a 3 disk config uses, but sometimes keeping cost down is very 
important (yes you're right - that RAID card add a chunk to the config - 
so another choice would be a 4 disk Mirrored config).  I can't imagine a 3 


disk RAID-5 config performing worse than a 2 disk Mirrored config.

...Neil




"Jim Franz" <franz400@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx


To
"Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: very low end i5 performance






Neil - we had a prev posting approx week ago about 3 disk raid
setups that seemed to be a performance problem, any comment?
Raid card and addtl disk adds over 30% to cost of box.
jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Palmer/DPS" <neilp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: very low end i5 performance


> Seems reasonably fast, but not really satisfied with disk performance -
> which as you may expect is a bit of a bottleneck.  Towards the end of an
> IPL especially the disk utilization is pegged at 100% for maybe 10
> minutes.  I woudl STRONGLY advise adding at least one additional disk 
and
> configuring for RAID-5, that way user data will be spread over 3 disk 
arms
> instead of just one.
>
> Users seemed pretty happy with it (it wasn't that bad once the IPL
> completed in the background, but then they were coming from a model 200
> with 16MB of memory running V3R2).
>
> ...Neil
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Franz" <franz400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 2004/10/12 14:05
>
>
>
> To
> <MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> very low end i5 performance
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone care to comment on experiences
> with very low end i5 520
> Express Edition 1 w/500cpw,
> 1 gig memory
> 2 - 35 gig drives mirrored.
> twinax console
> 30 gb 1/4 in cartridge tape
> Would be running small office (10-20 users), webfaced rpg application,
> as well as Apache webserver.
> tia
> jim franz