[THIN] A Swapfile Variation: Local RAID1 vs. SAN (IBM ESS)
- From: "Daniel Schoppmann" <dschoppmann@xxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 06:04:56 +0100
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
Other related posts:
- » [THIN] A Swapfile Variation: Local RAID1 vs. SAN (IBM ESS)
