<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: EVA6000 performance in Disk Enclosures</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757468#M37089</link>
    <description>OK. Lets discuss&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Type of disks - 15K&lt;BR /&gt;Number of disks - maximum possible (112)&lt;BR /&gt;RAID level - this volume is RAID5&lt;BR /&gt;Size of the I/Os - whats this&amp;amp;&lt;BR /&gt;Secuential or random access - copy to nul &lt;BR /&gt;Oustanding I/Os allowed by HBA driver - ?&lt;BR /&gt;Multipath software - HPDSM with ALB&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;1) A sequential read from a sigle server and typically through a single path is not a good measure of EVA performance. This system is designed to handle a lot of reads and writes from several servers. In a sequetial read test you're not going to get more speed than from a MSA or a JBOD with the same number of disks.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HP-UX server with same volume makes 100 Mb/sec/ I try to understand why?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;2) Trust EVAperf, it knows what's going on inside the EVA. Look at the latencies and amount of I/Os on the disk group&lt;BR /&gt;On evaperf all reports read latency not more then 5 ms.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;3) Changing parameters on the HBA driver, like maximum queue depth can have a big impact on maximum throughput.&lt;BR /&gt;Max queue depth in evaperf reports is 2. It is not more then default 32.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I dont't understand one process reading speed limits</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:41:26 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Victor Voronin</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-02-24T12:41:26Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>EVA6000 performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757466#M37087</link>
      <description>Hi.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I can't understand how EVA works with Windows.&lt;BR /&gt;I try to test EVA reading speed from Windows 2003 server. I start copy to nul process, and see 35 Mb/sec speed. EVAperf as shows about 40 Mb/sec. But when I start one more copy process it shows about 30 Mb/sec speed. EVAperf as shows 80 Mb/sec. &lt;BR /&gt;Why one process not use 70-80 Mb/sec?</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:52:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757466#M37087</guid>
      <dc:creator>Victor Voronin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-02-24T08:52:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: EVA6000 performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757467#M37088</link>
      <description>Performance depends on a lot of things:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;- Type of disks (FATA / 10K / 15K)&lt;BR /&gt;- Number of disks&lt;BR /&gt;- RAID level (0 / 1 / 5)&lt;BR /&gt;- Size of the I/Os&lt;BR /&gt;- Secuential or random access&lt;BR /&gt;- Oustanding I/Os allowed by HBA driver&lt;BR /&gt;- Multipath software&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;1) A sequential read from a sigle server and typically through a single path is not a good measure of EVA performance. This system is designed to handle a lot of reads and writes from several servers. In a sequetial read test you're not going to get more speed than from a MSA or a JBOD with the same number of disks.&lt;BR /&gt;2) Trust EVAperf, it knows what's going on inside the EVA. Look at the latencies and amount of I/Os on the disk group&lt;BR /&gt;3) Changing parameters on the HBA driver, like maximum queue depth can have a big impact on maximum throughput.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:18:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757467#M37088</guid>
      <dc:creator>Víctor Cespón</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-02-24T11:18:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: EVA6000 performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757468#M37089</link>
      <description>OK. Lets discuss&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Type of disks - 15K&lt;BR /&gt;Number of disks - maximum possible (112)&lt;BR /&gt;RAID level - this volume is RAID5&lt;BR /&gt;Size of the I/Os - whats this&amp;amp;&lt;BR /&gt;Secuential or random access - copy to nul &lt;BR /&gt;Oustanding I/Os allowed by HBA driver - ?&lt;BR /&gt;Multipath software - HPDSM with ALB&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;1) A sequential read from a sigle server and typically through a single path is not a good measure of EVA performance. This system is designed to handle a lot of reads and writes from several servers. In a sequetial read test you're not going to get more speed than from a MSA or a JBOD with the same number of disks.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HP-UX server with same volume makes 100 Mb/sec/ I try to understand why?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;2) Trust EVAperf, it knows what's going on inside the EVA. Look at the latencies and amount of I/Os on the disk group&lt;BR /&gt;On evaperf all reports read latency not more then 5 ms.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;3) Changing parameters on the HBA driver, like maximum queue depth can have a big impact on maximum throughput.&lt;BR /&gt;Max queue depth in evaperf reports is 2. It is not more then default 32.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I dont't understand one process reading speed limits</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:41:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757468#M37089</guid>
      <dc:creator>Victor Voronin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-02-24T12:41:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: EVA6000 performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757469#M37090</link>
      <description>112 disks in RAID 5, and only reading data can give you a very high speed. 18000 random operations per second and 720 MB/s.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The fact that you get different results on different operating systems, while the latencies on the EVA are below 5 ms, points to a limitation on the HBA driver. The EVA is sending all the data the HBA demands, if it's not going faster is because the server is not requesting more.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I insist in that sequential read performance from a single server is not a good measure, that's not the typical usage of a shared SAN storage. You'll get the same numbers from any array with the same number of disks.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:35:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/disk-enclosures/eva6000-performance/m-p/4757469#M37090</guid>
      <dc:creator>Víctor Cespón</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-02-24T13:35:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

