[THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
- From: Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:46:32 -0700
It's not just about getting more users on per box... It's all about the user
experience. Login times, Application load time, Application responsiveness
(for those apps that read/write alot of temp data), etc.
Joe
On 1/25/06, 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:
