- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Poor XP256 sequential write performance
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-08-2001 10:19 PM
тАО05-08-2001 10:19 PM
Poor XP256 sequential write performance
I run "#prealloc 1000000" on both system.
XP256 take 100 sec ( 10Mb /Sec)
DF400 take 35sec(25Mb/Sec)
Both system use only single array group.
Why expensively xp256(with 4Gb cache) have such poor performance?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-09-2001 07:21 AM
тАО05-09-2001 07:21 AM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
....Jamaica....XP256
real 0.24......0.11
user 0.00......0.00
sys 0.04......0.04
The Jamaica is SCSI and the XP is FC-AL.
The XP was 54% faster. I doubt the problem you are experiencing is inherently related to the XP. There is something else in your configuration.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-09-2001 08:24 AM
тАО05-09-2001 08:24 AM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
You are on scsi with your XP256 (or HDS7700E) and on your DF400 (HDS58XX or newer model, your results should show the DF400 faster than the XP256 (by up to 50% depending what, I have HDS internal facts that confirm...) these subsystems were developped for the best performance possible, but hasnt the security and comfort of an HDS7700E or XP256:
I have one 5800 connected to an 4 node SP2, 2 time 2 with HACMP, you cant imagine the pain it is when I have to extend the subsystem, and so having to explain to different departments that I have to shutdown all nodes connected in order to add an array for a node that is not theirs, although they have paid for High availability...
We have another one on a another site, but there is no remote copy facility etc...
All the best
Victor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-09-2001 11:30 PM
тАО05-09-2001 11:30 PM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
It is good idea to compair JBOD and xp256.
Sorry I had mistype prealloc command parm on this forum.
I allocated 1Gb ( Not 1Mb)
I also did compaire JBOD disk and XP256.
allocate 1Gb to target disk.
# timex prealloc test 1000000000
JBOD
real 1:14:08
user 0.15
sys 6.55
XP256
real 1:39.80
user 0.20
sys 14.37
DF400
real 38.69
user 0.29
sys 9.95
This result mean that xp256 with 4Gb mem slower than JBOD.
Is it real performance of xp256 with 4Gb mem?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-10-2001 09:28 AM
тАО05-10-2001 09:28 AM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
I reran the test here using 1GB (I made the same typo you did) and it looks to me like your JBOD numbers are pretty good, faster than mine. However my XP numbers are much better than yours. Victor mentioned that he thought you were using SCSI on your XP. Is that true? It might explain the numbers.
My JBOD are SCSI and the XP is FC-AL going to that big cache so it better be much faster. My new numbers are:
JBOD
real 2:56:90
user 0.20
sys 14.23
XP256
real 0:40.30
user 0.20
sys 19.90
I'm not sure how much this helps you. At least it's some other numbers to compare with. Like I said, I think Victor really had the answer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-11-2001 07:06 AM
тАО05-11-2001 07:06 AM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
Every FC-AL connect to primary and secondary v2500s directly.
So Interface bottle neck was not considered.
Disk of N4000 is just internal system disk.
-----------------------------
My guess is
Huum, Our xp256 that installed last September , its internal disk may be using old 20Mb scsi interface. (@_@)
And Older and cheap DF400s may be use LVD 80Mb scsi as internal interface.
Disks connected to 1 array group may be use 2 old scsi interfaces.
-------------------------------------
Why Daves xp256 was faster than mine?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-11-2001 07:35 AM
тАО05-11-2001 07:35 AM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
There can be numerous reasons why Dave's XP was faster, like: the number of arraygroups installed, are the arraygroups linear or dispersed formatted, the I/O load on the XP from other systems, the number of ACP's installed, is Continuous Access involved...
Allthough the timedifference is significant the above could cause the difference.
Regards,
Mark
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-14-2001 05:33 PM
тАО05-14-2001 05:33 PM
Re: Poor XP256 sequential write performance
Ok, the performance of 1 array goup is
limited to about 10mb/sec.
There are noway to get more performance of 1 array group.
If I need more performance, backup huge DB and change array configration and stripe it or
buy more array groups and acp and then use disk striping or buy other faster disk array.
Regards,