[THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
- From: "Berny Stapleton" <berny.stapleton@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:04:36 -0000
But if those are up to scratch, in most situations I have worked in,
getting more users onto each server, saving costs of heat, electricity
and space usage in data centres is actually a big concern. If I could
have got all those users onto two servers... I would have.
At the end of the day whether it takes 3 seconds or 4 seconds to load an
app isn't that much of a productivity loss to the end user, and the
business was willing to wear it.
Berny
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Joe Shonk
Sent: 26 January 2006 16:47
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Dell PE 1855 Blade Servers
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 <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 <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.
______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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:
