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. > ______________________________________________________________________ >