HPE Community read-only access December 15, 2018
This is a maintenance upgrade. You will be able to read articles and posts, but not post or reply.
Hours:
Dec 15, 4:00 am to 10:00 am UTC
Dec 14, 10:00 pm CST to Dec 15, 4:00 am CST
Dec 14, 8:00 pm PST to Dec 15, 2:00 am PST
ProLiant Servers (ML,DL,SL)
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

 
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Just a brief question: What is the average SCSI performance to be expected for the following config:
ML370 G3, 18.2 GB 15k SCSI320 HDD using the built in SCSI controller, W2k Server SP3
We have a average performance of 15 MB/s. Nothing else is connected to the SCSI bus. Drives are not fragmented. No other services running. Seems to be quite slow to us. Has anyone same or different experiences?
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
15 REPLIES
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
That is definitely a slow performance for the onboard SCSI controller. Have you tried updating the bios?? Please apply the latest support pack as well. Here is the link which has all the updates for your server:

http://h18007.www1.hp.com/support/files/server/us/locate/20_4307.html

Regards,
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Ok we updated the Bios (we are now at Compaq System Rom 2003.10.31) and we are running Support Pack 6.40 A. I tried copying two big image files (together ca. 2.2 GB) and it took some 130 s. When our calculation is correct we have an average data performance of ca. 16 MB/s.
We are copying from one local disk to another - both 18.2 GB 15k SCSI320 HDD but both connected to the same SCSI channel.
Is using the second available channel a solution or should we look somewhere else for the problem?
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Are there any settings that we overlooked?
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
Have you tried swapping the cable from one channel to the other?? If not then give that a shot and see if this does make a difference in the transfer rate.

Regards,
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
Just a quick thought. Have you tried by replacing the SCSI cable?? If not then please do.

Thanks,
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Well we could take the server offline in the evening but just a thought from us: We have the very same problem on TWO servers. Both ML370 G3 - both purchased this year. One is a W2k file server the other a W2k Sql2k server. The only difference is that the file server has 36 GB HDDs and the SQL has 18 GB HDDs in the internal bay. (Additionaly we updated the BIOS only on the SQL)
We stopped the SQL service when we copied the images and we made the very same test on the file server. Both tests were done when the network was down.
BTW, we have a drive array connected (RA4100 via FireWire) but its performance is very slow also. Max. reading perfomance is at 17 MB/s and writing is at 7 MB/s. Is there maybe a conflict between these components (BOTH servers access the very same RAID array)?
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
The only way to check about the conflict due to firewire would be by removing it temporarily and give it a try. What else do you have installed in the system?? I mean hardware point of view.

Regards,
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hi Sunil,
There is not much more installed in the servers. The file server has two tape drives installed but they are on the second channel of the internal SQL bus - so these should not affect the performance of the first channel, right? The only thing the two servers have in common - hardware-wise - is the RAID array. But the two fire wire controllers are in two different slots (in one server in slot 1 in the other in slot 6).
The fire wire controllers are PCI 66 MHz but the slots in the G3 are PCI-X (100 MHz) but this should also not affect the perfomance right?
Greetings,
Hadi
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
I understand this should not affect the performance. Since the firewire controllers have not been tested in our environment therefore, it's hard for me to be 100% sure. The best way to find the results would be to down the server and remove the 3rd party out of the picture completely. I would suggest removing the software as well. Thereafter, check the performance.

Regards,
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hi Sunil,
There is maybe a missunderstanding. There is no 3rd party hardware in our servers. All from Compaq / HP.
The fire wire controllers are StorageWorks 64-Bit / 66 MHz Fibre Host Bus Adapters (According to the Insight Agent: StorageWorks RAID Array 4000/4100 Controller)
If you think that these controllers could be the reason for a possible conflict we can take the server offline tonight and see if there are any improvements. (But you will understand that we would prefer having no downtime - if possible)
Hadi
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
Downtime is always a drag but we just wanna be sure about the cause of slower SCSI transfer. Therefore, I would definitely suggest taking the array out of the picture.

Regards,
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hi Sunil,

We took out the Compaq StorageWorks Fibre Channel card (64Bit / 66 MHz - now already a retired product) and even replaced the SCSI cable (standard SCSI cable that ships with ML370 G3). The result is: nothing changed. Here our summary: we copy from one HDD to another, both on the same SCSI channel. The file 691,334,928 Bytes and it takes at least 40 secs (one file & drives not fragmented). So an overall data performance of 16.5 MB/s. Do you have any other idea?
Alon-alon asal kelakon...
Sunil Jerath
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hello Hadi,
Well one last thing I would suggest is to Clear NVRAM by going in F9. I believe it's in Advanced features. Let the system redetect everything. If this does not fix then the only need to be done is to have the Board replaced. For some odd reason something tells me also that it could be a software issue. Anyways you did all you could do. I really appreciate your patience and cooperation. Please log in a call to our tech support and have the board replaced. Hopefully, that should fix the problem.

Regards,
e4services
Honored Contributor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hadi,

I have been following your discussion here as it has gone on. Too bad you can not get a good answer or solution out of HP. I have seen other posts here from other users that have had the time and interest to see the actual hard disk subsystem performance in the same manor you have. I think they all have asked the same question of why.

I think I saw one users evaluation as some sort of exacution delays by the OS and BIOS, that is other processes taking presidence over the operation at times during the operation. Search around you can probebly find them, and do not limit yourself to Compaq Proliant, users of Netservers have also made such comments
Hot Swap Hard Drives
Hadi Sukirman
Frequent Advisor

Re: ML370 G3 Expected int. SCSI Performance

Hi Sunil, hi "e4services.com",

When searching the forum we found the attached tool which apparently measures disk performance. The performance it reports is about 60 MB/s which is a number we can only dream about at the moment. (Even though it is not a good value looking at a U160 controller)
Here our question: Why does this tool report such a high performance while our file copying is at about 15-16MB/s? Since we are copying big files between 600-1200 MB (see thread history) we thought that our measuring would be more reliable. Did we make a mistake here?
And we still have a question for "e4services.com": We did not find the mentioned thread about execution delays. If you have more information about this subject we would be very happy to get it.
Hadi
Alon-alon asal kelakon...