× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.




You didn't say what type your 23 drives are. Are they slower 10K drives or worse, in which case the 10 x 15K drives would perform much better than
about 15-20 x 10K drives. Those 10 x 140GB drives may be overkill in size, but the minimum in arms that your config needs. They're probably
connected to a much faster controller than your older config, that will make a big difference too. My question would be how are they configuring 10 x
139.5GB drives, the frame doesn't hold that many. A 2 way POWER520 will hold 8 x 2.5 SAS drives or 6 x 3.5 SAS drives. I suspect they're adding a
SAS expansion chassis. In which case you should be able to add more disks to that chassis in the future if you need to. Another point, that 32GB
will help make up for some of the movement of data back and forth to your DASD and help compensate for less arms.

Good luck,
Bill Epperson Jr.
Systems Communications Analyst
Memorial Health System
(719) 365-8831





Mike Cunningham <mike.cunningham@xxxxxxx>

Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx To
"'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
09/01/2009 10:25
Subject
520 Config
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>






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?
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.