Re: very low end i5 performance

[Neil Palmer/DPS <neilp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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