|
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jones, John (US)
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:16 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: small i & power systems (disk performance)
The 640 was SPD while the new machine will be PCIx or PCIe. SPD was at
least an order of magnitude slower than either PCI interface. 6501
controllers had no write cache; 6533s had 4MB.
And, each new generation of hard drives tends to have better performance
even at the same spindle speeds. Compare the 4th & 5th generation of
Seagate 15K drives. Note the huge differences in minimum & maximum
transfer rates and, more important for ASystemiSeries/400 shops, the
multi-user IOMeter (a.k.a. server) scores:
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/suite_v4.php?typeID=10&testbe
dID=4&osID=6&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=321&devID_1=273&devCnt=2
Same manufacturer, spindle speed, and interface, but the 5th gen drive
trounces the 4th gen drive in every meaningful measure.
--
John A. Jones, CISSP
Sr. Analyst, Global Information Security
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc.
Voice: +1.630-455.2787
FAX: +1.312.601.1782
Email: john.jones@xxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:30 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: small i & power systems (disk performance)
Somewhere in the archives I have an entry where I moved from 42 disk
arms
down to 7 and got a much better performance picture. I ran BPCS period
end's and everything to compare. And the machine with the 42 disk arms
had it's lan cable yanked and was pretty much dedicated to that testing
with most other tasks ended. The 'live' machine was not so constrained
yet still had great performance doing the same tests with active comm
and
users working away on it.
Today's newer drives and controllers will blow the doors off of those.
Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
Kirk Goins <kgoins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
04/23/2008 03:29 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: small i & power systems (disk performance)
Keith Carpenter wrote:
System experts,
We are looking to move an old 640 with 72 8gb disks to a new low end
system. CPW should be no issue, but I'm concerned about disk IO
performance in these 520+/515/525 systems.
I had hoped to go with an 8 disk system (CEC only), but from what I've
read in the archives, you need an expansion box to be able to use a
better RAID controller. How much of an improvement would a 0595 and
something like a 5777 actually make over the integrated controller
(w/5727 cache) ?
Does the new power 520 offer anything better ? Is the integrated SAS
controller much of an improvement ? Can we put a better RAID directly
in the CEC ?You need to collect some basic performance data.. Mainly how many Disk
TIA,
Keith
I/O per second you are doing now under your normal load conditions. The
8GB drives 'MIGHT' me 10K at best and the controllers may have 104MB
cache depending on the card. The SAS drives are 15K and according to IBM
are 10% to 15% faster than their SCSI counter parts.
According to PPT slide I have the internal raid controller can handle
1100 to 1400 I/O per second as long as individual drives do not exceed
110 I/O per second
--
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.
--
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.
This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
then
delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use,
disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior
permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of
transmitting
software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on
any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss
or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this
communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-
client
privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to
receive
similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to
the
sender to this effect.
--
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 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.
midrange.com
