MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » September 2009

Re: 520 Config



fixed

You are doing well to question the configuration, but be sure to get the
reasoning behind the smaller number of disks. Ask if your business partner
has specified the drive controllers with large cache. We went through a
similar reduction in disk drives on our last upgrade, from 24 or so drives
to 12 drives. our performance is great, even with the smaller number of
drives.


- -
Steven Morrison
Fidelity Express





Mike Cunningham <mike.cunningham@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
09/01/2009 11:35 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


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

Subject
520 Config






We are looking to upgrade our 520 and our business partner has proposed
this config
2 CPUS 8300 CPW
32GB RAM
10 - 139.5GB disk drives

We currently run 1 CPU, 16GB RAM and 23 drives of various sizes.

I know this is a hard question to answer without a whole lot more
information but, generally, wouldn't going from 23 arms to 10 create a
bottleneck at disk IO? If we have any bottleneck currently it is with RAM
(Websphere takes a lot) and an occasional spike in CPU. We wanted to get
dual CPUs because we do plan on doing some partitioning in the future. I
know this config was done using IBMs configuration tool, would it build a
system that was not going to perform well?





Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact