[THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
- From: Steve Snyder <kwajalein@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:23:28 +1200
See http://www.tigicorp.com/citrix_solutions.htm
I haven't tried these nor am I affiliated with the company, but I'd be
interested in knowing if anyone has. Basically it's a solid-state-disk and
the claim for TSE boxes is you put your pagefile on it and instantly crank
up your scalability. Keeping in ind how tscale works, the concept seems
reasonable.
On 1/26/06, Berny Stapleton <berny.stapleton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, RAID 0 is a LOT better performance. I guess it just comes down to the
> question of whether you need it or not.
>
> In my scenarios previously disk access hasn't been the bottleneck, we have
> had to run gig to the servers before as network has been a bottleneck on
> applications that are dependent on SQL. I have also seen the 4 Gig memory
> limit being a bottleneck on how many users we can get on the servers.
>
> Yes, RAID 0 can give you a lot better performance, but at the same time, I
> haven't come across the issue yet where local disk has been the performance
> bottleneck of getting more users per server.
>
> Berny
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Rusty Yates
> *Sent:* 25 January 2006 14:24
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
>
>
> This brings up another question. Does RAID 0 so better performance than
> just a stand alone HD configuration?
>
> Rusty
>
>
> On 1/24/06, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The IBM HS20 and HP BL35p (SAS) seems to be lacking in the Raid
> > Controller cache arena as well... Enough so, that one customer is
> > considering abandoning RAID 1 in favor of a RAID 0 configuration... Initial
> > benchmarks are showing a HUGE improvement in Read, Writes, and overall
> > performance. But of course, you loose that redundancy.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > On 1/24/06, Rusty Yates <rusty27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just heard back from our outside sales from Dell and was told that one
> > > customer did a major test with Citrix and the Dell 1855 Blades and found
> > > that Citrix ran 30% slower due to no enough cache on the Raid Controller
> > > in
> > > their blades. Anyway the outside sales guy is recommending us to go with
> > > the 1850 1u servers instead which basically defects the purpose of going
> > > to
> > > blades (ex: density, wiring, power, etc......). Never thought I would
> > > actually hear a sales rep recommend against their own product.
> > >
> > > Anyway, just thought I would pass this along.
> > >
> > > Rusty
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/24/06, Rusty Yates <rusty27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate all the information from everyone. From all the
> > > > research that we've done we are hoping to go with IBM Servers and
> > > > Blades but
> > > > if the pricing isn't close we will most likely choose Dell. We
> > > > understand
> > > > IBM is going to have better management, denisty, etc and if money
> > > > wasn't a
> > > > factor IBM would be our #1 choice. But on the flip side with Dell, we
> > > > are a
> > > > Dell shop, the Dell pricing is better, and Dell's support has been
> > > > great.
> > > >
> > > > I will say I'm very disappointed that no one brought up Hitachi's
> > > > Blade Servers or even Silicon Blade Servers. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for all the information and laughs!
> > > >
> > > > Rusty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/21/06, Rusty Yates <rusty27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to know if anyone on this board has had any good or
> > > > > bad experience with the Dell PowerEdge 1855 Blade Servers. We are
> > > > > currently
> > > > > taking a hard look at using the Dell Blades for our Citrix Servers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance!
> > > > >
> > > > > Rusty
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> The contents of this transmission are confidential. If you are not the
> named addressee or if it has been addressed to you in error, please
> notify the sender immediately and then delete this message.
> Any unauthorised copying and transmission is forbidden. Electronic
> transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure. If verification is
> required, please contact the sender.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Other related posts:
