We have considered to redeploy FastT500 storage. According to the data
sheet, it claimed that it had 383MB/sec data access. I just wonder what
is the performance running in real world. Can anyone share your
experience about FastT500 performance. Thanks

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <1153886577.471214.177440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
raymond.rloh@gmail.com says...
>
>We have considered to redeploy FastT500 storage. According to the data
>sheet, it claimed that it had 383MB/sec data access. I just wonder what
>is the performance running in real world. Can anyone share your
>experience about FastT500 performance. Thanks
>

if the fast 50 is IBM's OEM'd version of Engenio's FFX-2 / 2Gbit RAID,
and you care about performance, you should look at the SAS-SATA/4Gbit
Fibre Channel RAIDs that are starting to deliver

_____                         .     .
'    \\                  .                .                       |>>
O//             .                        .                    |
\_\          .                              .                  |
| |      .                                    .      .         |
/  |  .          www.EvenEnterprises.com        .   .    .      |
/  .|            info@EvenEnterprises.com         . .      .     |
/ .  |         310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax      .        .  . o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new mid-high end storage
iSCSI/NAS/SAN/RAID from EMC, HP, Equallogic, Quantum, OverLand Storage

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I would second the SAS and also recommend looking at FC SBOD as an
option if you are looking for extremely high MB/s.  Another
recomendation for best performance per buck is taking a look at
widestiping SANs like the LeftHand Networks, BlueArch, OnStor.  They
utilize multiple modules clustered with data stripped across many disks
to hit very high performance at very low dollar marks.

If you have already purchased the FasT 500 then deploy it and bench it.
I have experience with this array and it will hit 300+MB/s but only
with the right RAID configs and a very supportive FC mesh with
multipathing.  One thing to consider is will your server handle that
performance.... Most PCI busses on the market will not hit a mark like
that so multiple servers would be needed to stress the box.

Why such a need for throughput?  Most databases (SQL, JET, Oracle) are
more dependant on IOP/s.  The only time in my career I've seen a
requirement for that kind of throughput is for render jobs, CAD, or
video post production.

Good luck,

JAA

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

<raymond.rloh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153886577.471214.177440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We have considered to redeploy FastT500 storage. According to the data
> sheet, it claimed that it had 383MB/sec data access. I just wonder what
> is the performance running in real world. Can anyone share your
> experience about FastT500 performance. Thanks
>

I can assure you that the performace specs are correct...
You can of couse kill performance by configuring the luns all on one drive
tray vs spreading them out on multiple trays.
The trick is to spread out your disk on differnt drive channels. Each drive
side channel could be connected to 1-8 trays giving you the best throughput.
So if you order a new one make sure you get 4 drive side Mini hubs.
Another consideration is the disk drives you choose. Normally smaller 18 gig
disk are going to be a little faster but 73 gig 15k disk are also giving
pretty good numbers.  If you want more space you can use the 143 gig disk
but loose a little in performance.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]