[THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
- From: Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:28:32 -0500
Correct but again if paging isn't the bottleneck then it doesn't do much
good to 'fix the problem'.
Jeff
On 1/26/06, Braebaum, Neil <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> To be completely equitable, (simplistically) that's the premise behind
> all the memory optimisation products that try to alleviate, prevent or
> delay paging.
>
> Neil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Pitsch
> > Sent: 26 January 2006 13:44
> > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
> >
> > that's a huge assumption that the bottleneck is the
> > pagefile/disk. Obvoiusly each environment is different but
> > pagefile/disk isn't usually the bottleneck.
> >
> >
> > On 1/25/06, Steve Snyder <kwajalein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > <mailto: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 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:
