[THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
- From: "Berny Stapleton" <berny.stapleton@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:39:03 -0000
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:
