On the face of it sure, however unless you run it through the performance
tools, you won't know.
I do hesitate to ask of there are enough storage units in that
configuration to make it perform well. Remember each I/O device creates a
pair of I/O channels for IBM i . IBM i really uses those channels so fast
storage could be defeated by not enough channels. You're better off with
too many small storage units than not enough of them. Dead flat minimum is
six storage units, and that will perform poorly in a high I/O environment
since there will only be twelve I/O channels.
Your business partner can request a study done by Midrange Performance Group
with their MPG software to model the changes. No cost to you or the
partner, IBM pays for it.
You'll need three weeks of performance collection objects. You would
download the software from MPG then let it consolidate and build the data
from the performance collections. That will get sent off to MPG and they
will turn a report around in a day or so to tell you exactly what to expect.
Waiting a few weeks for the results and buying properly will save lots of
angst later. (and money)
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gad
Miron
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 5:46 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: What is the difference between Flash storage and a Flash
Storage system like the V9000/V7000
Calling all sages
We're going to replace our S814 (3 cores activated) 6 TB internal HDDs
machine with a S914 (3 cores activated) 18 931GB Mainstream SAS 4k SFF-3 SSD
machine.
Is this a viable DASD configuration for a write intensive environment?
(it is common knowledge that SSD writes are only slightly faster then HDD
writes right?)
TIA
Gad
date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:29:31 +0000
from: Diego Kesselman <diegokesselman@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: What is the difference between Flash storage and a Flash
Storage system like the V9000/V7000
IBM Power Systems HDD and SSD options offer enhanced performance at a lower
cost and deliver server enhancements
https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=
an&subtype=ca&appname=gpateam&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS117-086
BTW: V9000 is as fast as internal SSDs, but I've seen high workloads on
enterprise systems wih no performane impact and no changes on service time
(always 0.3x ms, even on backup window)
I'll discard V5x unless you need storage on a budget. You'll feel
degradation from your enterprise SSDs
El 28 mar. 2018 07:18, "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx> escribi?:
Diego,
I'm currently using internal Enterprise SSD - 775gb SFF-2 SSD for IBM I
ESOH.
I've talked to some performance folks, and most agreed you can't beat
internal SSD with a top controller.
< On the other side there's a "mainstream" 931GB SSD with same price per GB
as an HHD, and 18% faster than a normal SSD.
What do mean by this?
Paul
--
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:
https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at
https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link:
http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
midrange.com
