Hi Here are the results of my harddisk-performance comparision made with a nice tool, called "h2benchw" from the favorite german IT-magazine: c't Download on: http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/ And here the winner: SAN-Volume, one bank consists of 12 18 GB (of course the winner, but I think the results are very impressive) Disk: swap_on_san Capacity: CHS=(851/255/63), 13671315 sectors = 6675 MByte Interface transfer rate w/ block size 128 sectors at 0.0% of capacity: Sequential read rate medium (w/out delay): 36443 KByte/s Sequential transfer rate w/ read-ahead (delay: 1.93 ms): 36145 KByte/s Repetitive sequential read ("core test"): 36007 KByte/s Sustained transfer rate (block size: 128 sectors): Reading: average 34691.6, min 13262.9, max 38658.9 [KByte/s] Writing: average 25385.2, min 21921.6, max 26963.2 [KByte/s] Random access read: average 6.3, min 0.3, max 13.1 [ms] Random access write: average 0.5, min 0.5, max 1.9 [ms] Random access read (<504 MByte): average 6.5, min 0.4, max 31.0 [ms] Random access write (<504 MByte): average 1.8, min 0.5, max 26.3 [ms] Application profile `swapping': 8232.6 KByte/s Application profile `installing': 13986.5 KByte/s Application profile `Word': 16254.9 KByte/s Application profile `Photoshop': 17287.1 KByte/s Application profile `copying': 25257.0 KByte/s Application profile `F-Prot': 6043.0 KByte/s Result: application index = 12.7 !!! WARNING: application profiles inaccurate due to small total capacity And the 2nd goes to a local build-in Raid 1 built with 2 IBM 10.000rpm 9GB Disk: swap_on_raid1 Capacity: CHS=(1110/254/63), 17762220 sectors = 8673 MByte Interface transfer rate w/ block size 128 sectors at 0.0% of capacity: Sequential read rate medium (w/out delay): 23905 KByte/s Sequential transfer rate w/ read-ahead (delay: 2.94 ms): 26423 KByte/s Repetitive sequential read ("core test"): 50382 KByte/s Sustained transfer rate (block size: 128 sectors): Reading: average 24095.0, min 20807.4, max 26118.0 [KByte/s] Writing: average 12522.2, min 1849.4, max 35733.9 [KByte/s] Random access read: average 9.3, min 0.4, max 16.1 [ms] Random access write: average 0.6, min 0.4, max 26.6 [ms] Random access read (<504 MByte): average 5.9, min 0.4, max 10.5 [ms] Random access write (<504 MByte): average 3.8, min 0.4, max 193.0 [ms] Application profile `swapping': 2860.6 KByte/s Application profile `installing': 10677.4 KByte/s Application profile `Word': 10653.3 KByte/s Application profile `Photoshop': 7682.3 KByte/s Application profile `copying': 9198.8 KByte/s Application profile `F-Prot': 5042.3 KByte/s Result: application index = 6.8 !!! WARNING: application profiles inaccurate due to small total capacity Ciao, Daniel dschoppmann@xxxxxx http://www.schoppmann.com/ Meeräckerstr. 24 68163 Mannheim home: 0621/8191407 mobil:0172/6395617 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von Joe Shonk Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Januar 2003 01:27 An: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: [THIN] Re: Problem with Remapping Drives Pull the Fibre Channel Adapter.=20 You should consider 2 physical disks in a Hardware Raid 1 array.. = Partitions C and D as Primary Partition (forget logical drive and = extended partition) I wouldn't use Dynamic Disks as it doesn't work = well with Imaging/cloning software. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Schoppmann [mailto:dschoppmann@xxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:14 PM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Problem with Remapping Drives Hi The driveremap.exe hangs. I am BEFORE the MF Installation. I already changed the from domain to workgroup member, as Doug Brown recommends. But still no chance. Is it possible, that remapping doesn't work if I have dynamic discs on = the server. Config: Disk 0 (Raid 1 inside server) holds C as Primary and E as Logical Drive within Extended Partition Disk 1 (SAN Volume via Fibre Channel adapter) holds D as Simple Volume (dynamic) C 6 GB should be system D 7 GB holds swapfile of 4 GB E 1 GB is for emergency W2K Installation Pleas, don't get confused. This system wasn't designed to be a Terminalserver (IBM x330), altough the SAN-Drive is much fast then an internal RAID 1 array :-) This was a former Lotus Notes Server that I = want to change to a Metaframe Server. Ciao, Daniel dschoppmann@xxxxxx http://www.schoppmann.com/ Meer=E4ckerstr. 24 68163 Mannheim home: 0621/8191407 mobil:0172/6395617 ***********************************************=20 This Weeks Sponsor: 99point9.com The 99Point9.com Online Tech Support=20 Helpdesk is the one-stop solution for all=20 your server-based computing needs.=20 http://www.99point9.com ************************************************ For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or=20 set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link. http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm *********************************************** This Weeks Sponsor: 99point9.com The 99Point9.com Online Tech Support Helpdesk is the one-stop solution for all your server-based computing needs. http://www.99point9.com ************************************************ For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link. http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm *********************************************** This Weeks Sponsor: 99point9.com The 99Point9.com Online Tech Support Helpdesk is the one-stop solution for all your server-based computing needs. http://www.99point9.com ************************************************ For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link. http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm