- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- HPE EVA Storage
- >
- Re: Local disk much faster than EVA8400
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
тАО02-10-2010 01:08 AM
тАО02-10-2010 01:08 AM
Local disk much faster than EVA8400
Win2003 x64 SP2 + KB945119
Emulex FC storport 2.20.006 (cp010982)
MPIO 4.00
IO-Performance: 220 MB/sec (read), 90 MB/sec (read+write) on SAN-LUN
Unbufferd write-IO, recsize = 2k: local disk 50 MB/sec; SAN-LUN 15 MB/sec !!!
any idea ???
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-10-2010 01:24 AM
тАО02-10-2010 01:24 AM
Re: Local disk much faster than EVA8400
Those are random or sequential writes?
You cannot get 25000 IOPS in the local disk of a blade unless it has a SSD.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-10-2010 01:44 AM
тАО02-10-2010 01:44 AM
Re: Local disk much faster than EVA8400
I think you're right. "spotlight" shows this, perhaps it's the cache-modul in the blade...
Still the question, why is SAN slower than local disk on small recsizes ?
(sustained) measurements are made by
iozone -i0 -t1 -r2k -s40m -+U
data local disk:
...
Record Size 2 KB
File size set to 409600 KB
Unbuffered Windows API usage.
...
Throughput test with 1 process
Each process writes a 409600 Kbyte file in 2 Kbyte records
Children see throughput for 1 initial writers = 14647.51 KB/sec
Parent sees throughput for 1 initial writers = 14629.57 KB/sec
Min throughput per process = 14647.51 KB/sec
Max throughput per process = 14647.51 KB/sec
Avg throughput per process = 14647.51 KB/sec
Min xfer = 409600.00 KB
Children see throughput for 1 rewriters = 33914.07 KB/sec
Parent sees throughput for 1 rewriters = 33803.10 KB/sec
Min throughput per process = 33914.07 KB/sec
Max throughput per process = 33914.07 KB/sec
Avg throughput per process = 33914.07 KB/sec
Min xfer = 409600.00 KB
SAN-disk:
Children see throughput for 1 initial writers = 1901.24 KB/sec
Parent sees throughput for 1 initial writers = 1900.86 KB/sec
Min throughput per process = 1901.24 KB/sec
Max throughput per process = 1901.24 KB/sec
Avg throughput per process = 1901.24 KB/sec
Min xfer = 409600.00 KB
Children see throughput for 1 rewriters = 1896.13 KB/sec
Parent sees throughput for 1 rewriters = 1895.70 KB/sec
Min throughput per process = 1896.13 KB/sec
Max throughput per process = 1896.13 KB/sec
Avg throughput per process = 1896.13 KB/sec
Min xfer = 409600.00 KB
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-10-2010 02:20 AM
тАО02-10-2010 02:20 AM
Re: Local disk much faster than EVA8400
Try iozone -i2 -t8 -r2k -s400m -+U
with MPIO set to SQST load balancing.
Also, investigate what kind of read/write pattern your applications will need. It's not the same an EVA hosting an Exchange server than one hosting VmWare virtual machines.
Using 2K I/O size is very unusual and not representative of a real world application.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-10-2010 06:06 AM
тАО02-10-2010 06:06 AM
Re: Local disk much faster than EVA8400
Backup-dump takes 4,5 h when utility is run in compressed-mode. With compression turned off, backup takes only 1 h (needing double disk space). Funny: double size of data speeds up backup by 4,5 x !!! (looks like streaming on tapes).
MPIO is set to SQST (we've already tried all other load balance policies).
Can I change "send window size" of the Adapter in HBAnyware, and to what value ?