[THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers

  • From: "Braebaum, Neil" <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:37:53 -0000

Some years back I did some work evaluating the impact / usefulness of
solid state HDs for pagefile usage for TS / Citrix boxes. I know at
least one other list member who did, too.

What I would say is that it's not clearly apparent where you will
definitely see benefit - *given the cost*, over other approaches.

Database servers or other application servers may be a different thing.

Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Snyder
> Sent: 25 January 2006 20:23
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
> 
> 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 <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 <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.
>       
> ______________________________________________________________________
>       
> 
> 
> 



*****************************************************************************
This email and its attachments are confidential and are intended for the above 
named recipient only. If this has come to you in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete this email from your system. You must take no 
action based on this, nor must you copy or disclose it or any part of its 
contents to any person or organisation. Statements and opinions contained in 
this email may not necessarily represent those of Littlewoods Shop Direct Group 
Limited or its subsidiaries. Please note that email communications may be 
monitored. The registered office of Littlewoods Shop Direct Group Limited is 
100 Old Hall Street Liverpool L70 1AB registered number 5059352
*****************************************************************************




This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - 
www.blackspider.com
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************

Other related posts: