RE: Performance 810 vs. 820

[ouuch@xxxxxxxxxxx]

On 7 May 2003 at 7:56, Andy Nolen-Parkhouse wrote:

>> It's probably too complex to get a definitive answer, even if you had
> given all of technical details.  My gut reaction is that the 810 (10 35
> GB drives RAIDed) will not be different enough from the 820 (22 17.5 GB
> drives mirrored) to make a difference.  If DASD performance is maxed out
> on the 820, your 810 configuration may not take to far enough back from
> the knee of the performance curve, and may actually provide less
> performance.  The unknown in making that judgment is the specific
> controller on the 810.  IBM has made some impressive claims for the #2757
> PCI-X Ultra RAID Controllers.  It could make a difference.

That's my feeling, too. Well, the 810 is our hot-standby machine, so when we 
have to switch 
over, we can make do for some time when there's a performance hit.

> If you want to replace the 820 with new hardware and preserve a
> relatively infinite upgrade path, then the 825 would be your choice.  You
> would jump to 3600 CPW (minimum with 3 processors) and might well go into
> sticker shock at the price of an enterprise package.

I guess we'll be getting the biggest 810.

It's still funny to see how we are outgrowing our systems. When we got the 820 
as a 
replacement for our 620 - the beast was blazing fast.

Regards,

Oliver