- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- HPE EVA Storage
- >
- EVA8400 Disk choices
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
тАО12-09-2009 08:38 AM
тАО12-09-2009 08:38 AM
We are in the process of buying a new EVA8400 SAN. A consultant gave us the advice of populating the SAN with two disk groups consisting of 80 x 146GB and 120 x 300GB.
The other choice we have is to populate the SAN with one disk group made of 160 x 300GB.
The 146GB disks are HP model BF146DA47C wich are Seagate ST3146356FC with firmware HP06.
The 300GB disks are HP model BF300D6188 wich are Hitachi HUS154530VLF400 with firmware HP02.
All of the disks in either configs are 15K rpm 4Gbps FC.
The total disk space would be about equivalent, between those two configs, but what the consultant says is that the setup with two disk groups would be more performant IO wise. We have a doubt about this, as this would go against the EVA8400 recommended best practices as published on the URL:
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA2-0914ENW.pdf
Is there a mathematical model that we could use to evaluate both propositions for it's IO performance?
What would storage experts recommend?
Thanks,
Francois
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-09-2009 10:54 AM
тАО12-09-2009 10:54 AM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
this could help you:
http://h30144.www3.hp.com/SWDSizerWeb/default.htm
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-09-2009 06:56 PM
тАО12-09-2009 06:56 PM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
As you indicated, its true that for better performance, involve more number of drives in IO operations, hence we should fill a disk group with as many disk drives as possible.
But when disks of different capacities exist in the same disk group, the larger disks have more LUN data. Since more data is allocated to the larger disks, they are more likely to be accessed. In a disk group the larger disks become fully utilized (in a performance sense) before the smaller disks. Although the EVA does not limit the concurrency of any disk in the disk group, the workload itself may require an I/O to a larger disk to complete before issuing another command. Thus, the perceived performance of the whole disk group can be limited by the larger disks.
Hence its advisable, if you have different capacity of drives, better to have two different Disk Groups of same size disks and Distribute the Load on them equally by using the corresponding LUNs in Application level.
Refer ├в Mixing disk capacities influences performance and capacity utilization├в section in EVA Best Practice Document for more information.
Regards
Susanta
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-10-2009 09:23 AM
тАО12-10-2009 09:23 AM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
So, if i follow your advice, and the SAN best practices, i will not mix different disk sizes within a disk group.
Now, what i would need to know, is what would be best between the two following configurations:
a) a SAN populated with a disk group made of 80 disks of 15K rpm 146GB, plus a second disk group made of 120 disks of 15K RPM 300GB
OR
b) The same SAN, populated with a single disk group which is made of 160 disks of 15K RPM 300GB?
Note that the brut disk space on configs a) and b) is roughly the same, of about 48TB. All disks have the same latency, and the same seek time.
Performance wise, is config a) or b) the better?
Thanks,
Francois
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-10-2009 10:43 AM
тАО12-10-2009 10:43 AM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
You'll have to spread the most active vdisks between both disk groups, to have all disks equally bussy.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-11-2009 04:21 AM
тАО12-11-2009 04:21 AM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
more disks = more IOPS. In case A you have 200 disks running, in case B "only" 160. But in case A you have to distributre the vdisks youself to all DGs to get maximum performance.
Best regards,
Patrick
Patrick
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-11-2009 06:11 AM
тАО12-11-2009 06:11 AM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
If i would propose the following scenario:
a SAN populated with
a) one disk group made of 80 x 146GB 15K, plus another disk group made of 120 x 300 GB 15K
OR
b) The same SAN populated with one disk group made of 200 x 300GB 15K
which of a) or b) would be more performant?
What other advantages would we have between a) and b) ?
One advantage i see is that we won't need to balance vdisks charges between disk groups?
Thanks,
Francois
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-11-2009 09:17 AM
тАО12-11-2009 09:17 AM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
Option a) would be more performant and advisible in your case.
Regards
Susanta
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-11-2009 09:30 AM
тАО12-11-2009 09:30 AM
Solutionin your second example both configs have 200 disks. In this case, I would prefer B. Same number of disks, but fewer diskgroups. This will result in more usable capacity. Best practise is to limit the number of DGs to a minimum. Config A in you second example would have a lower usable capacity.
Best regards,
Patrick
Patrick
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-11-2009 08:05 PM
тАО12-11-2009 08:05 PM
Re: EVA8400 Disk choices
Regards
Susanta