|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > April 2007 > Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS
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 |
Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS
|
|
| Raju Mahala 2007-03-31, 7:13 am |
| One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.
Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-03-31, 1:12 pm |
| On 31 Mar 2007 01:53:56 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
>storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
>At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
>between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.
>
>Raju
If the application requires performance then go iSCSI, it is faster
assuming everything else is constant. I'm assuming your backend
options are limited and that is why NetApp is your only choice. If
performance is the primary driver then nothing beats DAS. Nothing.
If performance is not your biggest issue then go CIFS if the app
supports it. Even though NetApp has some very nice features with
iSCSI and SnapDrive it's still not as simple as a cifs share. And
simplicity is priceless.
~F
| |
| Raju Mahala 2007-03-31, 1:12 pm |
| On Mar 31, 9:58 pm, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2007 01:53:56 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> If the application requires performance then go iSCSI, it is faster
> assuming everything else is constant. I'm assuming your backend
> options are limited and that is why NetApp is your only choice. If
> performance is the primary driver then nothing beats DAS. Nothing.
>
> If performance is not your biggest issue then go CIFS if the app
> supports it. Even though NetApp has some very nice features with
> iSCSI and SnapDrive it's still not as simple as a cifs share. And
> simplicity is priceless.
>
> ~F
Application is NetApp DFM which is hosted on Windows machine but local
disk size is only 40GB and current DFM DB size is 34GB so soon will be
bottleneck thats why decided to put DB on remote disk. Currently its
on CIFS share and working fine as far as NetApp monitoring is
concerned but there is one problem. During DB backup it hangs up after
around 50-60% completion. Then I stop the DFM monitor service then it
starts again. I don't know why. Another thing I feel when it is
accessed through another hosts web browser then I feel it is
responding little bit slow.
Thats why I was thinking if it is hosted on iSCSI then may be
situation improves. What do you suggest, may be due to CIFS.
I agree simplicity is priceless and CIFS is realy verys much simple
compare to iSCSI.
- Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-04-01, 1:13 pm |
| On 31 Mar 2007 10:59:53 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 31, 9:58 pm, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Application is NetApp DFM which is hosted on Windows machine but local
>disk size is only 40GB and current DFM DB size is 34GB so soon will be
>bottleneck thats why decided to put DB on remote disk. Currently its
>on CIFS share and working fine as far as NetApp monitoring is
>concerned but there is one problem. During DB backup it hangs up after
>around 50-60% completion. Then I stop the DFM monitor service then it
>starts again. I don't know why. Another thing I feel when it is
>accessed through another hosts web browser then I feel it is
>responding little bit slow.
>Thats why I was thinking if it is hosted on iSCSI then may be
>situation improves. What do you suggest, may be due to CIFS.
>I agree simplicity is priceless and CIFS is realy verys much simple
>compare to iSCSI.
>
>- Raju
A couple of things. Hosting a monitoring tool's db on the very thing
your monitoring is probably not the best approach.
The DFM database has a recommended max size of 4GB. Ours is around
9GB and we are having issues on DAS. I am very suprised to to hear
you are not having serious issues at 34GB. It's possible that the
problems you are seeing are due to the size. I would highly recommend
you contact support on this, if for no other reason than to verify
your configuration.
We're using Linux as our DFM server and NetApp recommended puting the
db over NFS but we are not inclined to do so due to my first point.
iSCSI may solve your backup issue but I would still recommend
contacting support for verification. In either case I think your
response time from a browser is going to be slow.
~F
| |
| Moojit 2007-04-01, 7:14 pm |
|
"Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175331236.411538.53300@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
> storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
> At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
> between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.
>
> Raju
>
Run DataMover's Performance Test, and compare the empirical results. You'll
need to request a license to perform these tests.
http://www.moojit.net/Networking/downloads.shtml
The Moojit
| |
| Raju Mahala 2007-04-03, 1:15 pm |
| On Apr 1, 9:48 pm, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2007 10:59:53 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A couple of things. Hosting a monitoring tool's db on the very thing
> your monitoring is probably not the best approach.
>
> The DFM database has a recommended max size of 4GB. Ours is around
> 9GB and we are having issues on DAS. I am very suprised to to hear
> you are not having serious issues at 34GB. It's possible that the
> problems you are seeing are due to the size. I would highly recommend
> you contact support on this, if for no other reason than to verify
> your configuration.
>
> We're using Linux as our DFM server and NetApp recommended puting the
> db over NFS but we are not inclined to do so due to my first point.
>
> iSCSI may solve your backup issue but I would still recommend
> contacting support for verification. In either case I think your
> response time from a browser is going to be slow.
>
> ~F- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We are using Windows machine as our DFM server. I am not aware about
the NetApp recommendation for the size of DFM Database (monitor.db
file) but yes it is around 34GB as of now. There are not much problem
except Database backup as mentioned earlier.
But yes I should contact to Netapp PSE to get it verify. I update you
on it.
Do you have SRM integrated with DFM, may be big DB size is due to SRM
having bits and bytes info.
Tell me one thing if I stop DFM monitor service and then take DFM DB
backup then would it be consistent ?
Thanks & Regards,
Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-04-03, 7:14 pm |
| On 3 Apr 2007 10:51:33 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>We are using Windows machine as our DFM server. I am not aware about
>the NetApp recommendation for the size of DFM Database (monitor.db
>file) but yes it is around 34GB as of now. There are not much problem
>except Database backup as mentioned earlier.
>But yes I should contact to Netapp PSE to get it verify. I update you
>on it.
>
>Do you have SRM integrated with DFM, may be big DB size is due to SRM
>having bits and bytes info.
>Tell me one thing if I stop DFM monitor service and then take DFM DB
>backup then would it be consistent ?
>
>Thanks & Regards,
>Raju
The DFM backup scripts actually stop the db to guarantee consistency.
If you do it manually, without stopping the db service, there is no
such guarantee.
However, if you know your polling frequency it is very likely it would
be if you did it at the right time.
~F
| |
| Raju Mahala 2007-04-06, 7:13 am |
| On Apr 4, 12:19 am, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2007 10:51:33 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The DFM backup scripts actually stop the db to guarantee consistency.
> If you do it manually, without stopping the db service, there is no
> such guarantee.
>
> However, if you know your polling frequency it is very likely it would
> be if you did it at the right time.
>
> ~F
I got it verified by NetApp TSE and according to him big DB size is
due to SRM.
How to change polling frequency. I am not aware about it so I hope its
must be default value.
- Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-04-06, 7:14 pm |
| On 6 Apr 2007 04:05:53 -0700, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 12:19 am, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I got it verified by NetApp TSE and according to him big DB size is
>due to SRM.
>
>How to change polling frequency. I am not aware about it so I hope its
>must be default value.
>
>- Raju
It depends on what version you are running. In the older "DFM"
versions you changed it under options. In the new "Operations
Manager" version it's under something else, bottom left of page but
forget the names.
~F
|
|
|
|
|