[THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix

One thing I've learned about IBM is that, much like MS, many different
answers from many different people.  This may be one of those cases.




On 7/19/06, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Nope... What I said is true and has been confirmed by IBM and they blame Intel for giving them the wrong wattage specification for the em64t processors. Supposedly there is some kind of fix for it but I haven't seen it.


Joe


On 7/19/06, Stage, Paul <p.stage@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually, a fully populated chassis does have redundant power domains. > If you have all 4 power supplies installed. Blades 1-6 are on domain 1. > Blades 7-14 are on domain 2. Total input required is 5027W. Each PS is > 2000W, with a total of 8000W. There is room to spare there. Especially since > the input power idle for all 14 blades run around 2126W. > > You may want to check your Power supplies, if you are having those > issues, you may have a failure or defect. That, or you may have both PDU's > attached to the same 208V/30amp circuit. > > See attached screenshot for example. I'm also including an attachment on > IBM's power consumption. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On > Behalf Of *Joe Shonk > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:10 PM > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix > > > Issues with Chassis Vibrations... USB 1.x (need i say more. 2.0 had > been out for years)... No raid controller cache. A fully populated > chassis cannot have redundant power domains... (the 2000w PS are too > small). If you reboot too many servers, some will shutdown and the only > way to power them up again is to pull the blade and reseat. Plus a host of > other issues... > > Joe > > On 7/19/06, Tom Diroff <tdiroff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Joe > > > > In what way were the first HS20 blades and chassis poorly designed? > > > > Thanks > > > > Tom Diroff > > > > > > Joe Shonk wrote: > > > > I am refering the Drive/Controller... As far as HP or IBM... Both... > > (for the HP blades I am refering to the SAS controller) > > > > IBM recommends a SAN basically because disk perfomance sucks and the > > have an unusually high failure rate with the drives. Then again, the first > > HS20 SCSI blades/chassis was poorly designed. > > > > Joe > > > > On 7/19/06, Eldon < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > sre you referring to the drive performance on blades? If so, would > > > that be HP or IBM? > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Joe Shonk < joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Even the SCSI 10k drives are not that great... Mostly because the > > > onboard raid controllers are poorly implemented and most do not have a > > > cache. > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Luchette, Jon < JLuchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > i agree with that. you are limited as to the local drives that > > > > come in blades. many will only have ide drives available so the peformance > > > > benefits from FC disks are significant... > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > *Jon Luchette > > > > * *Emerson Hospital* > > > > *Technology Specialist III* > > > > *Work: 978-287-3369* > > > > *Cell: 978-360-1379* > > > > > > > > jluchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > *_______________________________________________* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > *On Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:31 PM > > > > > > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen many orgs do this with the older blades strictly > > > > because of the IDE drivers that were in use. They were getting better > > > > performance from the SAN vs the local IDE drives. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Jeff Pitsch > > > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server* > > > > > > > > *Forums not enough? > > > > Get support from the experts at your business > > > > **http://jeffpitschconsulting.com* > > > > <http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Eldon < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > on a related note, for those organizations that are using Blades > > > > > for TS\Citrix, are a majority using local blade disks rather than boot from > > > > > SAN? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Jeff Pitsch < jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > while I agree with what your saying the fact is is that if > > > > > you are implementing a SAN most servers are probably going to have HBA's in > > > > > them already whether it's for backup or disk access. If your implementing > > > > > EMC SAN's then feasible and economical aren't usually something they are > > > > > necessarily worried about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Jeff Pitsch > > > > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server* > > > > > > > > > > *Forums not enough? > > > > > Get support from the experts at your business > > > > > **http://jeffpitschconsulting.com*<http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Landin, Mark < Mark.Landin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Cost prohibitive" is a subjective measure and varies by > > > > > > company. Yes, many places do it. That doesn't mean it's feasible or > > > > > > economical in every organization. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch > > > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are so many organizations doing boot from SAN that truly > > > > > doubt it is cost prohibitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Jeff Pitsch > > > > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server* > > > > > > > > > > *Forums not enough? > > > > > Get support from the experts at your business > > > > > **http://jeffpitschconsulting.com*<http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Eldon < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > my understanding is that it was disk cost - the # of spindles > > > > > needing to be allocated, multiplied by the number of servers booting from > > > > > SAN..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/06, Luchette, Jon < JLuchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > right, what is he talking about. because if he is talking > > > > > > about the hba's then that is not specific to booting from the san, but just > > > > > > something that you will need if you want to use your san at all...? > > > > > > > > > > > > what is he talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > *Jon Luchette > > > > > > * *Emerson Hospital* > > > > > > *Technology Specialist III* > > > > > > *Work: 978-287-3369* > > > > > > *Cell: 978-360-1379* > > > > > > > > > > > > jluchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > *_______________________________________________* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Landin, Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:23 AM > > > > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What cost does he associate with boot-from-SAN? > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Eldon > > > > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:13 AM > > > > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] SAN Benefits for Citrix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My organization just installed an EMC SAN and I was thinking > > > > > > how I could use it to benefit my current (XP FR3) and future (upgrading to > > > > > > PS 4) environment. How can I use the SAN to enhance my Citrix deployment > > > > > > (currently 15 servers, 250 concurrent users, hardware become outdated and > > > > > > soon needs replacement)? I was told by our SAN Admin that booting new > > > > > > servers from the SAN would probably be cost prohibitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Other related posts: