Thanks to everyone for the replies. Makes me feel better about the config but I do need to confirm it has the faster controller. To answer some of your questions the current 23 drives are a mix of sizes, most at 15K. There are 15-4326 drives, 4-4327 drives, 4-6719 drives. I think the 6719s are the oldest and might be 10K. I setup a job to run WRKDSKSTS every 5 minutes all day and during the day we max out in the 20-25% disk use range over a 5 minute sample period. At night during backups we max out in the 50-55% range. That is the max. Average over the 3 hours of backup appears to be in the 25-30% range.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William.Epperson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:11 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Cc: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'; midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 520 Config
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.
midrange.com
