|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > March 2005 > SCSI vs SATA Hih-Perf
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
SCSI vs SATA Hih-Perf
|
|
| lmanna@gmail.com 2005-03-25, 5:45 pm |
| Hello all,
Which of the two following architectures would you choose for a
high-perf NFS server in a cluster env. Most of our data ( 80% ) is
small ( < 64 kb ) files. Reads and Writes are similar and mostly random
in nature:
Architecture 1:
Tyan 2882
2xOpteron 246
4 GB RAM
2x80Gb SATA ( System )
2x12-Way 3Ware Cards
24 73 GB 10k rpm Western Digital Raptors
Software RAID 10 on Linux 2.6.x
XFS
Architecture 2:
Tyan 2881 with Dual U-320 SCSI
2xOpteron 246
4 GB RAM
2x80Gb SATA ( System )
12x146Gb Fujitsu 10k SCSI
Software RAID 10 on Linux
XFS
The price for both system is almost the same. Considerations:
- Number of Spindles: Solution 1 looks like it might have an edge here
for small sequential reads and writes since there are just twice as
many spindles.
- PCI Bus Saturation: Solution 1 also appears to have an edge in case
we use large sequential reads. Solution 2 would be limited by the Dual
SCSI bus bandwidth 640Gb. I doubt we would ever reach that level of
bandwidth in any random-read or random-write situation and in our small
random file scenario I think both system would perform equally. Any
comments ?
- MTBF: Solution 2 has a definite edge. Some numbers:
MTBF1= 1 / ( 24* 1/1.2million + 2/1million ) = 45454.54 hours
Raptor MTBF = 1,200,000 hours; 3Ware MTBF = 1,000,000 hours
MTBF2= 1 / ( 12* 1/1.2million ) = 100,000 hours
Not surprisingly Solution 2 is twice as reliabe. This doesn't take
into account the novelty of the SATA Raptor drive and the proven track
record of the SCSI solution. In any case comments on this MTBF point
are welcomed.
- RAID Performance: I am not sure about this. In principle both
solution should behave the same since we are using SW RAID but I don't
know how the fact that SCSI is a bus with overhead would affect RAID
performance ? What do you think ? Any ideas as to how to spread the
RAID 10 in a dual U 320 SCSI Scenario ?
SATA being Point-To-Point appears to have an edge again but your
thoghts are welcomed.
- Would I get a considerable edge if I used 15k SCSI Drives ? I am not
totally convinced that the SATA is our best choice. Any help is greatly
appreciated.
Many thanks,
Parsifal
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-25, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all,
> Which of the two following architectures would you choose for a
> high-perf NFS server in a cluster env. Most of our data ( 80% ) is
> small ( < 64 kb ) files. Reads and Writes are similar and mostly random
> in nature:
> Architecture 1:
> Tyan 2882
> 2xOpteron 246
> 4 GB RAM
> 2x80Gb SATA ( System )
> 2x12-Way 3Ware Cards
> 24 73 GB 10k rpm Western Digital Raptors
> Software RAID 10 on Linux 2.6.x
> XFS
> Architecture 2:
> Tyan 2881 with Dual U-320 SCSI
> 2xOpteron 246
> 4 GB RAM
> 2x80Gb SATA ( System )
> 12x146Gb Fujitsu 10k SCSI
> Software RAID 10 on Linux
> XFS
> The price for both system is almost the same. Considerations:
> - Number of Spindles: Solution 1 looks like it might have an edge here
> for small sequential reads and writes since there are just twice as
> many spindles.
> - PCI Bus Saturation: Solution 1 also appears to have an edge in case
> we use large sequential reads. Solution 2 would be limited by the Dual
> SCSI bus bandwidth 640Gb. I doubt we would ever reach that level of
> bandwidth in any random-read or random-write situation and in our small
> random file scenario I think both system would perform equally. Any
> comments ?
> - MTBF: Solution 2 has a definite edge. Some numbers:
> MTBF1= 1 / ( 24* 1/1.2million + 2/1million ) = 45454.54 hours
> Raptor MTBF = 1,200,000 hours; 3Ware MTBF = 1,000,000 hours
> MTBF2= 1 / ( 12* 1/1.2million ) = 100,000 hours
> Not surprisingly Solution 2 is twice as reliabe. This doesn't take
> into account the novelty of the SATA Raptor drive and the proven track
> record of the SCSI solution. In any case comments on this MTBF point
> are welcomed.
> - RAID Performance: I am not sure about this. In principle both
> solution should behave the same since we are using SW RAID but I don't
> know how the fact that SCSI is a bus with overhead would affect RAID
> performance ? What do you think ? Any ideas as to how to spread the
> RAID 10 in a dual U 320 SCSI Scenario ?
> SATA being Point-To-Point appears to have an edge again but your
> thoghts are welcomed.
> - Would I get a considerable edge if I used 15k SCSI Drives ? I am not
> totally convinced that the SATA is our best choice. Any help is greatly
> appreciated.
One thing you can be relatively sure of is that the SCSI controller
will work well with the mainboard. Also Linux has a long history of
supporting SCSI, while SATA support is new and still being worked on.
For you access scenario, SCSI will also be superior, since SCSI
has supported command queuing for a long time.
I also would not trust the Raptors as I would trust SCSI drives.
The SCSI manufacturers know that SCSI customers expect high
reliability, while the Raptor is more a poor man's race car.
One more argument: You can put Config 2 on a 550W (redundant)
PSU, while Config 1 will need something significantly larger,
also because SATA does not support staggered start-up, while
SCSI does. Is that already factored into the cost?
Arno
| |
|
| > Hello all,
>
> Which of the two following architectures would you choose for a
> high-perf NFS server in a cluster env. Most of our data ( 80% ) is
> small ( < 64 kb ) files. Reads and Writes are similar and mostly random
> in nature:
>
> Architecture 1:
> Tyan 2882
> 2xOpteron 246
> 4 GB RAM
> 2x80Gb SATA ( System )
> 2x12-Way 3Ware Cards
> 24 73 GB 10k rpm Western Digital Raptors
> Software RAID 10 on Linux 2.6.x
> XFS
>
> Architecture 2:
> Tyan 2881 with Dual U-320 SCSI
> 2xOpteron 246
> 4 GB RAM
> 2x80Gb SATA ( System )
> 12x146Gb Fujitsu 10k SCSI
> Software RAID 10 on Linux
> XFS
>
> The price for both system is almost the same. Considerations:
>
> - Number of Spindles: Solution 1 looks like it might have an edge here
> for small sequential reads and writes since there are just twice as
> many spindles.
Yes, but Raptors have 226 IO/s vs. Fujitsu 269 IO/s.
> - PCI Bus Saturation: Solution 1 also appears to have an edge in case
> we use large sequential reads. Solution 2 would be limited by the Dual
> SCSI bus bandwidth 640Gb. I doubt we would ever reach that level of
> bandwidth in any random-read or random-write situation and in our small
> random file scenario I think both system would perform equally. Any
> comments ?
You are designing for NFS, right? Don't forget that network IO and
SCSI IO are on the same PCI-X 64bit 100MHz bus. Therefore available
throughput will be 800MB/s * 0.5 = 400MB/s
In random operations, if you get 200 IO/s from each SCSI disk,
you will have 12disks * 200 IO/s * 64KB = 154MB/s
> - MTBF: Solution 2 has a definite edge. Some numbers:
>
> MTBF1= 1 / ( 24* 1/1.2million + 2/1million ) = 45454.54 hours
>
> Raptor MTBF = 1,200,000 hours; 3Ware MTBF = 1,000,000 hours
>
> MTBF2= 1 / ( 12* 1/1.2million ) = 100,000 hours
How did you calculated your total MTBF???
Your calcs maybe good for RAID0 but not for RAID10.
Assuming 5 year period, for 1,200,000 hour MTBF disk
reliabilty is about 0.964.
For RAID10 (stripe of mirrored drives) in 6x2 configuration
eqivalent MTBF will be 5,680,000 hours
Assuming 5 year period, for 1,000,000 hour MTBF disk
reliabilty is about 0.957.
For RAID10 (stripe of mirrored drives) in 12x2 configuration
eqivalent MTBF will be 2,000,000 hours
For a single RAID1 of the 1,000,000 hr MTBF drives
equivalent MTBF will be 23,800,000 hours
BTW, 3Ware controllers are PCI 2.2 64bit 66MHz.
I can't believe that their MTBF is so low (1,000,000 hr)
I you loose one, probably your RAID will go down too.
> Not surprisingly Solution 2 is twice as reliabe. This doesn't take
> into account the novelty of the SATA Raptor drive and the proven track
> record of the SCSI solution. In any case comments on this MTBF point
> are welcomed.
>
> - RAID Performance: I am not sure about this. In principle both
> solution should behave the same since we are using SW RAID but I don't
> know how the fact that SCSI is a bus with overhead would affect RAID
> performance ? What do you think ? Any ideas as to how to spread the
> RAID 10 in a dual U 320 SCSI Scenario ?
> SATA being Point-To-Point appears to have an edge again but your
> thoghts are welcomed.
>
> - Would I get a considerable edge if I used 15k SCSI Drives ?
In theory up to 40%.
> I am not
> totally convinced that the SATA is our best choice.
Agree.
> Any help is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Parsifal
>
| |
| J. Clarke 2005-03-26, 2:45 am |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One thing you can be relatively sure of is that the SCSI controller
> will work well with the mainboard. Also Linux has a long history of
> supporting SCSI, while SATA support is new and still being worked on.
If he's using 3ware host adapters then "SATA support" is not an
issue--that's handled by the processor on the host adapter and all that the
Linux driver does is give commands to that processor.
Do you have any evidence to present that suggests that 3ware RAID
controllers have problems with any known mainboard?
> For you access scenario, SCSI will also be superior, since SCSI
> has supported command queuing for a long time.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't follow that because SCSI has supported command
queuing for a long time that the performance will be superior.
> I also would not trust the Raptors as I would trust SCSI drives.
> The SCSI manufacturers know that SCSI customers expect high
> reliability, while the Raptor is more a poor man's race car.
Actually a Raptor is an enterprise SCSI drive with an SATA chip on it
instead of a SCSI chip on it. The Raptors aren't "poor man's" _anything_,
they're Western Digital's enterprise drive. WD has chosen to take a risk
and make their enterprise line with SATA instead of SCSI. Are you
suggesting that WD is incapable of producing a reliable drive?
If it was a Seagate Cheetah with an SATA chip would you say that it was
going to be unreliable?
> One more argument: You can put Config 2 on a 550W (redundant)
> PSU, while Config 1 will need something significantly larger,
> also because SATA does not support staggered start-up, while
> SCSI does. Is that already factored into the cost?
Uh, SATA requires one host interface for each drive. Whatever processor is
controlling those host interfaces can most assuredly stagger the startup if
that is an issue.
Not saying that SCSI is not the superior solution but the reasons given seem
to be ignoring the fact that a "smart" SATA RAID controller is being
compared with a "dumb" SCSI setup.
> Arno
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| |
| lmanna@gmail.com 2005-03-26, 7:45 am |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
>
> One thing you can be relatively sure of is that the SCSI controller
> will work well with the mainboard. Also Linux has a long history of
> supporting SCSI, while SATA support is new and still being worked on.
>
> For you access scenario, SCSI will also be superior, since SCSI
> has supported command queuing for a long time.
>
> I also would not trust the Raptors as I would trust SCSI drives.
> The SCSI manufacturers know that SCSI customers expect high
> reliability, while the Raptor is more a poor man's race car.
My main concern is their novelty, rather then their performance. Call
it a hunch but it just doesn't feel right to risk it while there's a
proven solid SCSI solution for the same price.
>
> One more argument: You can put Config 2 on a 550W (redundant)
> PSU, while Config 1 will need something significantly larger,
Thanks for your comments. I forgot about the Power. Definitely worth
considering since we're getting 3 of these servers and UPS sizing
should also play in the cost equation.
> also because SATA does not support staggered start-up, while
> SCSI does. Is that already factored into the cost?
This I don't follow, what's staggered start-up ?
Parsifal
>
> Arno
| |
| Curious George 2005-03-26, 7:45 am |
| On 26 Mar 2005 01:01:12 -0800, lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This I don't follow, what's staggered start-up ?
>
It is a feature that staggers the spinup of each disk sequentially
leaving enough time between disk starts to prevent overloading the
power supply. I think he meant that because he believed SATA does not
do this you would need a beefier power supply than you would with the
scsi setup to avoid problems on powerup.
AFAIK delay start or staggered spinup (whatever you want to call it)
is available on SATA but it is controller specific (& most don't
support it) and it is not a standard feature like the delay start &
remote start jumpers on scsi drives & backplanes.
| |
| lmanna@gmail.com 2005-03-26, 7:45 am |
|
Peter wrote:
[ Stuff Deleted ]
here[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes, but Raptors have 226 IO/s vs. Fujitsu 269 IO/s.
Yeap ! I like those Fujitsus and they are cheaper then the cheetahs.
>
case[vbcol=seagreen]
Dual[vbcol=seagreen]
small[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You are designing for NFS, right? Don't forget that network IO and
> SCSI IO are on the same PCI-X 64bit 100MHz bus. Therefore available
> throughput will be 800MB/s * 0.5 = 400MB/s
Uhmm .. you're right. I guess I'll place a dual e1000 on the other
PCI-X
channel. See:
ftp://ftp.tyan.com/datasheets/d_s2881_100.pdf
>
> In random operations, if you get 200 IO/s from each SCSI disk,
> you will have 12disks * 200 IO/s * 64KB = 154MB/s
>
>
> How did you calculated your total MTBF???
> Your calcs maybe good for RAID0 but not for RAID10.
Thanks for the correction. You're right again.
>
> Assuming 5 year period, for 1,200,000 hour MTBF disk
> reliabilty is about 0.964.
>
> For RAID10 (stripe of mirrored drives) in 6x2 configuration
> eqivalent MTBF will be 5,680,000 hours
>
> Assuming 5 year period, for 1,000,000 hour MTBF disk
> reliabilty is about 0.957.
>
> For RAID10 (stripe of mirrored drives) in 12x2 configuration
> eqivalent MTBF will be 2,000,000 hours
>
> For a single RAID1 of the 1,000,000 hr MTBF drives
> equivalent MTBF will be 23,800,000 hours
Excuse my ignorance but how did you get these numbers ? In any case
your numbers show that MTBF with solution 1 is about 1/2 than solution
2.
>
> BTW, 3Ware controllers are PCI 2.2 64bit 66MHz.
> I can't believe that their MTBF is so low (1,000,000 hr)
> I you loose one, probably your RAID will go down too.
I thought it was a bit too low too but there was no info on the 3ware
site.
>
take[vbcol=seagreen]
track[vbcol=seagreen]
point[vbcol=seagreen]
don't[vbcol=seagreen]
RAID[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> In theory up to 40%.
In reality though I would say 25-35%
>
>
> Agree.
Thanks !
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2005-03-26, 7:45 am |
| lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Which of the two following architectures would you choose for a
> high-perf NFS server in a cluster env. Most of our data ( 80% ) is
> small ( < 64 kb ) files. Reads and Writes are similar and mostly
> random in nature:
I wouldn't use either one of them since your major flaw would be using an
Opteron when you should only be using Xeon or Itanium2 processors. Now, if
you are just putting an MP3 server in the basement of your home for
light-duty work you can squeak by with the Opterons. As for the drives, I
would only use SCSI in the system you mention.
Rita
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> My main concern is their novelty, rather then their performance. Call
> it a hunch but it just doesn't feel right to risk it while there's a
> proven solid SCSI solution for the same price.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for your comments. I forgot about the Power. Definitely worth
> considering since we're getting 3 of these servers and UPS sizing
> should also play in the cost equation.
Power is critical to reliability. If you have a PSU with, say
50% normal and 70% peak load, that is massively more reliable than
one with 70%/100%. Also many PSUs die on start-up, since e.g.
disks draw their peak currents on spindle start.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This I don't follow, what's staggered start-up ?
You can jumper most (all?) SCSI drive do delay their spindle-start.
Spindle start results in a massive amount of poerrt drawn for some
seconds. Maybe as much as 2-3 times the peaks you see during operation.
SCSI drives can be jumperd to spin-up on power-on or on receiving
a start-unit command. Some also support delays. You should be
able to set the SCSI controller to issue the start-unit command
to the drives with, say, 5 seconds delay between each unit or so.
This massively reduces power drawn on start-up.
SATA drives all (?) do spin-up on power-on. It is a problem
when you have many disks. The PSU needs the reserves to deal
with this worst case.
Arno
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I wouldn't use either one of them since your major flaw would be using an
> Opteron when you should only be using Xeon or Itanium2 processors.
Sorry, but that is BS. Itanium is mostly dead technology and not
really developed anymore. It is also massively over-priced. Xeons are
sort of not-quite 64 bit CPUs, that have the main characteristic of
being Intel and expensive.
I also know of no indications (except marketing BS by Intel) that
Opterons are unreliable.
Arno
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
> Sorry, but that is BS. Itanium is mostly dead technology and not
> really developed anymore. It is also massively over-priced. Xeons are
> sort of not-quite 64 bit CPUs, that have the main characteristic of
> being Intel and expensive.
You need to catch up with the times. You are correct about the original
Itaniums being dogs, but I'm talking about the new Itanium2 processors,
which are also 64-bit. As for Intel being expensive, you get what you pay
for. The new Itanium2 sytems are SWEEEEEEET!
> I also know of no indications (except marketing BS by Intel) that
> Opterons are unreliable.
It's being proven in the field daily. You simple don't see Opteron based
solutions being deployed by major commercial and governmental entities.
True, there are a few *novelty* systems that use many Opteron processors,
but they are merely a curiosity than the mainstream norm. That said, if I
wanted a dirt-cheap gaming system I would opt for an Opteron based SATA box.
Rita
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You need to catch up with the times. You are correct about the original
> Itaniums being dogs, but I'm talking about the new Itanium2 processors,
> which are also 64-bit. As for Intel being expensive, you get what you pay
> for. The new Itanium2 sytems are SWEEEEEEET!
You recommend a _new_ product for its reliability????
I don't think I need to comment on that.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It's being proven in the field daily. You simple don't see Opteron based
> solutions being deployed by major commercial and governmental entities.
Which is a direct result of Intels FUD and behind-the-scenes politics.
In order to prove that something is unreliable it has to be used and
fail. It being not used does not indicate unreliability. It just
indicates "nobody gets fired for buying Intel".
So nothing is actually proven about reliability (or lack of)
of Opterons in the field.
> True, there are a few *novelty* systems that use many Opteron
> processors, but they are merely a curiosity than the mainstream
> norm. That said, if I wanted a dirt-cheap gaming system I would opt
> for an Opteron based SATA box.
That is certainly true. As allways the question is to get the
right balance for a specific application. If you have the money
to buy the most expensive solution _and_ the clout to make the
vendor not just rip you off, you certainly will get an andequate
solution. But you will pay too much. Not all of us can afford
to buy stuff the way the military does.
Arno
| |
| J. Clarke 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Power is critical to reliability. If you have a PSU with, say
> 50% normal and 70% peak load, that is massively more reliable than
> one with 70%/100%. Also many PSUs die on start-up, since e.g.
> disks draw their peak currents on spindle start.
>
>
>
> You can jumper most (all?) SCSI drive do delay their spindle-start.
> Spindle start results in a massive amount of poerrt drawn for some
> seconds. Maybe as much as 2-3 times the peaks you see during operation.
>
> SCSI drives can be jumperd to spin-up on power-on or on receiving
> a start-unit command. Some also support delays. You should be
> able to set the SCSI controller to issue the start-unit command
> to the drives with, say, 5 seconds delay between each unit or so.
> This massively reduces power drawn on start-up.
>
> SATA drives all (?) do spin-up on power-on. It is a problem
> when you have many disks. The PSU needs the reserves to deal
> with this worst case.
Would you do the world a favor and actually take ten minutes to research
your statements before you make them? All SATA drives sold as "enterprise"
drives have the ability to perform staggered spinup.
> Arno
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> You recommend a _new_ product for its reliability????
> I don't think I need to comment on that.
Oh please, come on now! This is like saying BMW introduces a new car this
year and it is going to be a failure in the world for using cutting edge
technology that hasn't a single shred of old technology behind it. When you
lift the hood you still see the same old internal combustion engine that
they used for the last 50-years. The difference is they improved
manufacturing processes and materials to make the product better. They
didn't redesign the wheel for the sake of doing so.
Take a new Itanium2 box for a test drive and you'll open your eyes.
>
>
> Which is a direct result of Intels FUD and behind-the-scenes politics.
> In order to prove that something is unreliable it has to be used and
> fail. It being not used does not indicate unreliability. It just
> indicates "nobody gets fired for buying Intel".
Then again, if the box were being used in environments that were life
dependant such as on the battlefield, reliability is paramount over cost.
Intel has a proven track record for reliability in the field. I would feel
safe using an Intel solution over an AMD any day of the week.
> So nothing is actually proven about reliability (or lack of)
> of Opterons in the field.
Market share has a great way of defining reliability. It would seem that
the major players don't feel comfortable betting their livelihood on AMD.
>
> That is certainly true. As allways the question is to get the
> right balance for a specific application. If you have the money
> to buy the most expensive solution _and_ the clout to make the
> vendor not just rip you off, you certainly will get an andequate
> solution. But you will pay too much. Not all of us can afford
> to buy stuff the way the military does.
Define "pay too much"? Most people and I would rather pay too much upfront
instead of being backended with high maintenance and repair costs, not to
mention the disastrous outcome of total failure. Like I said, you get what
you pay for. If the military would go totally AMD than I would agree with
you. Till that day, AMD is not a processor to be taken seriously. Plus,
there resale value sucks!!!
Rita
| |
| Bill Todd 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
[nothing very significant]
One really needs hip-boots to wade through the manure of these last few
posts.
1. Opteron systems have reliability comparable to Xeon systems, and if
they lag Itanics by any margin at all it's not by much (Itanics do have
a couple of additional internal RAS features that Opterons and Xeons
lack, but the differences are not major ones).
2. While Intel didn't do as excellent a job of adding 64-bit support to
Xeons as AMD did with AMD64, once again the difference is not a dramatic
one.
3. The first Itanic wasn't just a dog, it was an absolute joke.
McKinley and Madison are much more respectable but still consume
inordinate amounts of power and are in general not performance-leading
products: while the newest Madisons managed to regain a very small lead
in SPECfp over POWER5 that's the only major benchmark they lead in (at
least where the competition has bothered to show up: HP has done a fine
job of carefully selecting specific benchmark niches which lacked such
competition, though been a bit embarrassed in cases where it
subsequently appeared), and Itanic often winds up not in second place
but in third or even fourth behind POWER (not just POWER5 but often
behind POWER4+ as well in commercial benchmarks), Opteron, Xeon, and/or
SPARC64 - and for a year or so the top-of-the-line 1.5 GHz Madisons
couldn't even beat the aging and orphaned previous-process-generation
Alpha in SAP SD 2-tier, though they're now a bit ahead of it (this was
the only commercial benchmark HP was willing to allow EV7 to compete in:
it made Itanic look bad, but they needed it to beat the POWER4 score
there).
And that's for benchmarks, where the code has been profiled and
optimized to within an inch of its life. Itanic is more dependent on
such optimization to achieve a given level of performance than its more
flexible out-of-order competition is, and hence falls farther behind
their performance levels in real-world situations where much code is not
so optimized.
4. Nonetheless, Itanic is not an abandoned product. While its eventual
success or failure is still to be determined, Intel is at least
currently still pouring money, engineers, and time into it (though
apparently not at quite the rate it was earlier: in the past year it's
cut a new Itanic chipset from its plans which would have allowed faster
bus speeds and axed a new Itanic core that the transplanted Alpha team
was building for 2007, and what those engineers are now working may or
not be Itanic-related).
- bill
| |
| lmanna@gmail.com 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
|
Opteron is not a processor to be taken seriously ???? Any backing
with hard numbers for what you're saying ? We have a whole 64-node dual
opteron cluster running 64-bit applications for more than a year and
it's been not only reliable but given the nature of our applications
crucial in a time when Intel was sleeping in their 32-bit laurels and
convincing the industry and neophytes that 64-bit equals Itanium only.
I applaud AMD for their screw-intel approach giving floks like us a
great cost-effective 64 bit option. If the Opteron wasn't succesfull
Intel would have never come up with the 64-bit Xeon, their mantra would
have been "Buy Itanium". Have you tried to cost out a 64-node dual
Itanic lately ?? Moreover, our current file-servers are Xeon based and
we don't feel confident on their running 64-bit OS and/or XFS.
The only consideration I had for the Xeons was their wider choice of
mobo availability, and the new boards with 4x, 8x and 16x PCI-Express
options which might prevent PCI bus saturation in some extreme video
streaming or large sequential reads applications, which is not the case
in our scenario. You might also need 10GB ethernet to cope with such
data stream.
Parsifal
| |
|
| In article <114b3ubcrc6am5e@news.supernews.com>,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>
>
> You need to catch up with the times. You are correct about the original
> Itaniums being dogs, but I'm talking about the new Itanium2 processors,
> which are also 64-bit. As for Intel being expensive, you get what you pay
> for. The new Itanium2 sytems are SWEEEEEEET!
>
>
> It's being proven in the field daily. You simple don't see Opteron based
> solutions being deployed by major commercial and governmental entities.
> True, there are a few *novelty* systems that use many Opteron processors,
> but they are merely a curiosity than the mainstream norm. That said, if I
> wanted a dirt-cheap gaming system I would opt for an Opteron based SATA box.
April Fool's a week early?
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Oh please, come on now! This is like saying BMW introduces a new car this
> year and it is going to be a failure in the world for using cutting edge
> technology that hasn't a single shred of old technology behind it. When you
> lift the hood you still see the same old internal combustion engine that
> they used for the last 50-years. The difference is they improved
> manufacturing processes and materials to make the product better. They
> didn't redesign the wheel for the sake of doing so.
> Take a new Itanium2 box for a test drive and you'll open your eyes.
Oh, I agree that it is powerful hardware. But you know, I rather
have that 10 machine cluster with 10 times the storage that can actually
do the job than this single, gold-plated big iron.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Then again, if the box were being used in environments that were life
> dependant such as on the battlefield, reliability is paramount over cost.
> Intel has a proven track record for reliability in the field. I would feel
> safe using an Intel solution over an AMD any day of the week.
So? From what I hear, getting people killed is preferred to
spending lots of money on most battlefields. And if you think
thet CPU reliability is the most important question, then
you cannot have much experience with software.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Market share has a great way of defining reliability.
Well, that is complete nonsense. Market share does not define any
technical characteristic. Market share could indicate some technical
problem, but in this instance it does not. It rather signifies
"we have allways bought Intel".
> It would seem that the major players don't feel comfortable betting
> their livelihood on AMD.
So? And what does that indicate exactly, besides that they just
continue to do what they always did, like any large, conservative
organisation? It does not say anything about the technological
quality of Opterons.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Define "pay too much"? Most people and I would rather pay too much
> upfront instead of being backended with high maintenance and repair
> costs, not to mention the disastrous outcome of total failure.
If that were so, there would be hard numbers about this out there.
Care to give a reference to a technological study that shows
that AMD is less reliable than Intel to a degree that matters?
> Like I said, you get what you pay for. If the military would go
> totally AMD than I would agree with you. Till that day, AMD is not
> a processor to be taken seriously.
As somebody with now perhaps ~10 CPU years actual usage on AMD CPUs
(mostly Athlons) under Linux I cannot agree. I have had troubles, but
not a single problem because of the CPUs.
Arno
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage flux <support@fluxsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <114b3ubcrc6am5e@news.supernews.com>,
> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> April Fool's a week early?
Probably suppressed machine rage. I know I have some. But then what
do I know, I use AMD CPUs and cheap drives. Probably deserve all
the problems I have ;-)
Arno
| |
| Maxim S. Shatskih 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| > As somebody with now perhaps ~10 CPU years actual usage on AMD CPUs
> (mostly Athlons) under Linux I cannot agree. I have had troubles, but
> not a single problem because of the CPUs.
Usually, when people are speaking about "Athlons are worse", this is due to
worse qualities of _chipsets and mobos_, and not the AMD's CPUs themselves.
VIA chipsets were traditionally worse then Intel ones - for instance, in terms
of lame ACPI support.
--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> Oh, I agree that it is powerful hardware. But you know, I rather
> have that 10 machine cluster with 10 times the storage that can
> actually
> do the job than this single, gold-plated big iron.
Of course you would, but the majority of commercial and military entities
disagree with you.
>
> So? From what I hear, getting people killed is preferred to
> spending lots of money on most battlefields. And if you think
> thet CPU reliability is the most important question, then
> you cannot have much experience with software.
Sorry, software is of no concern to me since that is the other person's
problem. But, then again, there are people whom traditionally blame hardware
related problems on the software. The anti-Microsoft crowd comes to mind.
>
>
> Well, that is complete nonsense. Market share does not define any
> technical characteristic. Market share could indicate some technical
> problem, but in this instance it does not. It rather signifies
> "we have allways bought Intel".
Or more desirably, "we always sell Intel" because this is what our customers
that have a clue know what they want.
>
> So? And what does that indicate exactly, besides that they just
> continue to do what they always did, like any large, conservative
> organisation? It does not say anything about the technological
> quality of Opterons.
But it speaks volumes of the people purchasing the hardware. Not many want
to have egg on their face when the passing fad called the Opteron takes a
dump.
>
> If that were so, there would be hard numbers about this out there.
> Care to give a reference to a technological study that shows
> that AMD is less reliable than Intel to a degree that matters?
I only go by what the majority wants and it surely isn't AMD. And most AMD
zealots wouldn't want to look at the hard numbers if they bit them in the
XXX.
>
> As somebody with now perhaps ~10 CPU years actual usage on AMD CPUs
> (mostly Athlons) under Linux I cannot agree. I have had troubles, but
> not a single problem because of the CPUs.
I guess it boils down to your expectations of what you want from any
particular CPU. Like I said, if it's gaming and a simple home based MP3
server for the kiddies than I'll say that AMD is the only choice from a
sheer economics standpoint.
Rita
| |
| Arno Wagner 2005-03-26, 8:45 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maxim S. Shatskih <maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Usually, when people are speaking about "Athlons are worse", this is due to
> worse qualities of _chipsets and mobos_, and not the AMD's CPUs themselves.
In the beginning that was certainly true, especially as AMD chipsets
did not get as much R&D as the Intel ones because of low market share.
I think it is past.
> VIA chipsets were traditionally worse then Intel ones - for
> instance, in terms of lame ACPI support.
Agreed. I had those problems. In fact I believe it became
usable only recently. However it is not really needed on
a server.
Arno
| |
| Curious George 2005-03-27, 2:45 am |
| On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:48:01 -0500, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04
@aol.com> wrote:
>lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I wouldn't use either one of them since your major flaw would be using an
>Opteron when you should only be using Xeon or Itanium2 processors. Now, if
>you are just putting an MP3 server in the basement of your home for
>light-duty work you can squeak by with the Opterons. As for the drives, I
>would only use SCSI in the system you mention.
Rita,
You've got to be the most predictable poster on usenet. Many of us
would choke if you ever made different points, or sold Intel & scsi
based machines without trolling.
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2005-03-27, 7:45 am |
| Curious George wrote:
> You've got to be the most predictable poster on usenet. Many of us
> would choke if you ever made different points, or sold Intel & scsi
> based machines without trolling.
LOL! Is there really anything else worth using besides an Intel based SCSI
system? Point made!
Rita
| |
| Curious George 2005-03-27, 5:50 pm |
| On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:48:05 -0500, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04
@aol.com> wrote:
>Curious George wrote:
>
>
>LOL! Is there really anything else worth using besides an Intel based SCSI
>system? Point made!
For x86 "Servers" & "Workstations" I'm also a Supermicro slut and a
Seagate SCSI bigot. These are safe bets for a stable, reliable
platform; their quality & consistency makes integration easy & yields
good value. Believe it or not, though, there are other worthwhile
things & an inflexible one size fits all approach is inherently
flawed. But that's not my point. Your answer proved it nonetheless.
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2005-03-27, 8:45 pm |
| Curious George wrote:
> For x86 "Servers" & "Workstations" I'm also a Supermicro slut and a
> Seagate SCSI bigot. These are safe bets for a stable, reliable
> platform; their quality & consistency makes integration easy & yields
> good value. Believe it or not, though, there are other worthwhile
> things & an inflexible one size fits all approach is inherently
> flawed. But that's not my point. Your answer proved it nonetheless.
I see you learned my tastes? Yes, I realize there are other "worthwhile"
solutions out there. That's not the issue since I put all options on the
table for the customer. If I don't have something to fit their needs I
refer them to people that do. I see no logic in pissing around with
hardware that has no benefit for my customers or myself.
Rita
| |
| chrisv 2005-03-28, 7:45 am |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>Arno Wagner wrote:
>
>
>You need to catch up with the times. You are correct about the original
>Itaniums being dogs, but I'm talking about the new Itanium2 processors,
>which are also 64-bit. As for Intel being expensive, you get what you pay
>for. The new Itanium2 sytems are SWEEEEEEET!
Ignore the troll, too stupid to understand what Arno meant by "dead
technology".
| |
| Faeandar 2005-03-28, 5:52 pm |
| On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:53:12 GMT, Curious George <cg@email.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:48:01 -0500, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04
>@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Rita,
>
>You've got to be the most predictable poster on usenet. Many of us
>would choke if you ever made different points, or sold Intel & scsi
>based machines without trolling.
Not just predictable but wrong. For truly badass NFS performance that
is non-appliance Solaris is the way to go, Solaris on Sparc that is.
But maybe that was the OP's other option besides Opteron? Dunno.
Also, Opteron kicks the crap out of Itanium and Xeon in compute
applications. That's one of the reasons AMD managed to grab so much
more market share than they previously had. The other issue being
Intel stupidly made Itanium non-32bit compatible.
~F
| |
| Curious George 2005-03-29, 8:46 pm |
| On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:39:45 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>Not just predictable but wrong. For truly badass NFS performance that
>is non-appliance Solaris is the way to go, Solaris on Sparc that is.
>But maybe that was the OP's other option besides Opteron? Dunno.
>
>Also, Opteron kicks the crap out of Itanium and Xeon in compute
>applications. That's one of the reasons AMD managed to grab so much
>more market share than they previously had. The other issue being
>Intel stupidly made Itanium non-32bit compatible.
>
>~F
If the OP wants Opterons, he could also check out some "cheap gaming
systems" like these ;)
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/#AMD-Opteron
|
|
|
|
|