sre you referring to the drive performance on blades? If so, would that
be HP or IBM?
On 7/19/06, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Even the SCSI 10k drives are not that great... Mostly because the
> onboard raid controllers are poorly implemented and most do not have a
> cache.
>
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 7/19/06, Luchette, Jon < JLuchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > i agree with that. you are limited as to the local drives that come
> > in blades. many will only have ide drives available so the peformance
> > benefits from FC disks are significant...
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > *Jon Luchette
> > *** *Emerson Hospital*
> > *Technology Specialist III*
> > *Work: 978-287-3369*
> > *Cell: 978-360-1379*
> >
> > jluchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > *_______________________________________________*
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > *On Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:31 PM
> >
> > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix
> >
> >
> > I've seen many orgs do this with the older blades strictly because of
> > the IDE drivers that were in use. They were getting better performance from
> > the SAN vs the local IDE drives.
> >
> >
> > *Jeff Pitsch
> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server*
> >
> > *Forums not enough?
> > Get support from the experts at your business
> > * *http://jeffpitschconsulting.com* <http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/06, Eldon < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > on a related note, for those organizations that are using Blades
> > > for TS\Citrix, are a majority using local blade disks rather than boot
from
> > > SAN?
> > >
> > > On 7/19/06, Jeff Pitsch < jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > while I agree with what your saying the fact is is that if you
> > > are implementing a SAN most servers are probably going to have HBA's in
them
> > > already whether it's for backup or disk access. If your implementing EMC
> > > SAN's then feasible and economical aren't usually something they are
> > > necessarily worried about.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Jeff Pitsch
> > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server*
> > >
> > > *Forums not enough?
> > > Get support from the experts at your business
> > > * *http://jeffpitschconsulting.com*<http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/19/06, Landin, Mark < Mark.Landin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Cost prohibitive" is a subjective measure and varies by
> > > > company. Yes, many places do it. That doesn't mean it's feasible or
> > > > economical in every organization.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > *On Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:08 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > there are so many organizations doing boot from SAN that truly
> > > doubt it is cost prohibitive.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Jeff Pitsch
> > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server*
> > >
> > > *Forums not enough?
> > > Get support from the experts at your business
> > > * *http://jeffpitschconsulting.com*<http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/19/06, Eldon < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > my understanding is that it was disk cost - the # of spindles
> > > > needing to be allocated, multiplied by the number of servers booting
from
> > > > SAN.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/19/06, Luchette, Jon < JLuchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > right, what is he talking about. because if he is talking about
> > > > > the hba's then that is not specific to booting from the san, but just
> > > > > something that you will need if you want to use your san at all...?
> > > > >
> > > > > what is he talking about?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > *Jon Luchette
> > > > > *** *Emerson Hospital*
> > > > > *Technology Specialist III*
> > > > > *Work: 978-287-3369*
> > > > > *Cell: 978-360-1379*
> > > > >
> > > > > jluchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > *_______________________________________________*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > *On Behalf Of *Landin, Mark
> > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:23 AM
> > > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SAN Benefits for Citrix
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What cost does he associate with boot-from-SAN?
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > *On Behalf Of *Eldon
> > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:13 AM
> > > > > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] SAN Benefits for Citrix
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My organization just installed an EMC SAN and I was thinking
> > > > > how I could use it to benefit my current (XP FR3) and future
(upgrading to
> > > > > PS 4) environment. How can I use the SAN to enhance my Citrix
deployment
> > > > > (currently 15 servers, 250 concurrent users, hardware become outdated
and
> > > > > soon needs replacement)? I was told by our SAN Admin that booting new
> > > > > servers from the SAN would probably be cost prohibitive.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
