- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- HPE EVA Storage
- >
- Re: MSA1500cs, VMs and performance questions
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
тАО11-29-2006 10:03 AM
тАО11-29-2006 10:03 AM
So, my questions are:
1. Is there a formula I can use to approximate what the IO usage is going to be with all of this new traffic going to and from the SAN? What are the theoretical limits of the MSA1500?
2. Best practice for SQL and Exchange is that transaction logs are kept on separate physical drives from the data. Is it enough to create a separate logical drive on the RAID1+0 array for the transaction logs to go on or should I have a 2nd RAID1+0 array that is just used for the log file logical drives?
Thanks,
Kris
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-01-2006 03:12 AM
тАО12-01-2006 03:12 AM
SolutionRe 1. - you may find this thread useful:
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1066572
Re 2. - at least in the MSA world you really should have a separate array (i.e. a bunch of disks) for your logs; this is becuse logs generate mostly sequential I/O writes requests, while data tables are accessed with a random pattern.
Rgds.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-01-2006 09:45 AM
тАО12-01-2006 09:45 AM
Re: MSA1500cs, VMs and performance questions
for perfromance and reliability, I would reccomend using the MSA30's(SCSI disks) for your SQL/Exchange/VM's and use the MSA20's (SATA) for your disk to disk backups
from the quick specs:
Performance - The MSA1500 cs and its components have been designed using the latest in standard 2 Gb interconnects and Fibre Channel technology. Performance is rated at a transmission rate of up to 30,000 IOPs from cache and bandwidth of up to 200 MB per second. Performance can be substantially impacted by number of users and type of application. With dual controller active/active configurations, performance increase to >43,000 IOP/s from cache and 367MB/s throughput.
Regards,
Marty
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-28-2008 06:18 PM
тАО12-28-2008 06:18 PM
Re: MSA1500cs, VMs and performance questions
After some tweaks, e.g. locking HBA ports to 2Gb to match 2Gb FC to controller, setting F port type, running MPIO software in the client, updating all firmware, increasing our MSA cache to 512MB per controller, we get a maximum of 240MB/sec throughput with Active/Active on the MSA1500cs.
We are interested in the exact configuration of anyone with more than 240MB/sec, or close to the 367MB/sec quoted, throughput.
Our blades are BL460c and our disks are 28x U320 300GB SCSI 10K. We have dual StorageWorks 4/8 SAN switches, each with one 2Gbit FC to the SCSI controller.
Our three LUN are configured as (1) 9x disk R5 64kb slit across two shelves, (2) 9x disk R5 64kb slit across two shelves, (3) 8x disk R0 128kb split across two shelves. We found this LUN configuration optimal for our hardware for testing read throughput.
We request suggestions to improve our total throughput. Our controller CPU during read testing is #1=48% and #2=25%. Our switch performance says it is under-utilized, the 2Gb FC to disks is at 36% on the busy switch.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-30-2008 08:50 PM
тАО12-30-2008 08:50 PM
Re: MSA1500cs, VMs and performance questions
We figured out why our limit was 240MB/sec throughput with the MSA1500cs.
Our disks are 10k limiting the maximum MSA1000/MSA1500cs throughput, e.g. 10k/15k = 66%, and 240MBsec/367MBsec = 66%.
The lesson learned is full suggested HP performance from the MSA1000/MSA1500cs requires use of 15k SCSI disks in each of our MSA30 chassis.
I wish this was mentioned in the Quick Specs or simply more obviously stated elsewhere. Maybe the source of the problem is caused by an outdated controller, such that 15k SCSI disks are required to achieve 367MB/sec maximum throughput. It seemed to me, but was shown to be false, that 28x 10k U320 disks might achieve 367MB/sec. Now we know.