New ML570 G3 Low Performing Question - Need Help

[Junji]

Hi,

We purchased a new ML570 G3 server with four Intel Xeon 2.83 GHz/667 MHz - 4MB L3, 4GB Memory and 5 300GB Ultra320 SCSI drives with Smart Array 641 Controller. I configured the first two drive as RAID 1 with two logical partion (C and D), the remaining 3 drive as RAID 5 (E). Installed was Windows 2000 Advance Server, MSSQL 2000 Enterprise and Symantec Antivirus Corp. Ed. as server. Previously we used Fujitsu Primergy 610 with only 2GB Memory and two 2.0 GHz Processor. My question is how come that this new server when in fact the specification was doubled was performing poorly compared to our previous server. This trouble me since I am the one who proposed for the upgrade, we used this server to act as SQL database server for warehouse management data. Please help. Thanks.

[Junji]

I also want to add that both windows 2000 OS and SQL server 2000 has service pack 4 installed. Thanks.

[Oleg Koroz]

Standard 641 comes with 64MB and upgraded with 128MB with BBWC. What you have exactly?
How busy server with READ and WRITE? Ratio?

If you have option to try:
Smart Array 6404/256 Controller 273914-B21
It will gave you chance to use Duplex on the SCSI backplane and split channels from controller - there will be extra boost for performance.
Or even split between two controllers, Keep 641 for O/s and Data with second controller, both controllers can be installed on the different BUS.


http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantstorage/arraycontrollers/smartarray641/index.html
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantstorage/arraycontrollers/smartarray6400/

http://h200005.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00256706/c00256706.pdf

[Ryan Goff]

what was your previous server's specifications?

[Terry Hutchings]

I suspect KOV is correct on the array controller being the possible cause of this. Did you have this type of controller or an equivalent lower end smart array controller in your previous server?

After reading through the specs you supplied for the server it appears the 641 is likely a weak point.

I believe you'll likely get better performance if you install the 128MB BBWC for this controller or possibly even a 6400 controller.

[Junji]

Our previous server is Fujitsu-Siemens TX600 model with the following specs:
2GB DDR-RAM PC2100, 2 2.0Ghz/1MB Xeon Proccessor, RAID controller U320 2-ch 2i/2e 128 MB Adpt with 5 73GB U320 SCSI HDD.

In our old server I installed SP3 for both windows 2000 and SQL server, in our new HP server, I installed SP4 for both. Is it possible that the cause is the latest service pack? Thanks.

[Terry Hutchings]

It's possible.

The controller you had appears to be the equivalent of a 6400 - "RAID controller U320 2-ch 2i/2e 128 MB Adpt". The description sounds like that for a 6400 controller.

[Junji]

Yes Terry, I agree. I compared PCI Peak Data Transfer Rate and SCSI Peak Data Transfer Rate for SA-6402, SA-642, and SA-641 before I buy, and they are all the same except for the cache. The real difference is the no. of drive simultaneously supported which we do not need yet, besides we are constricted by budget so I don't want to waste money and feauture that I will not use. I will try to re-install all and upgrade to both just SP3 and see if there are improvements. Is there anybody out there who have experience the same due to SP4 problem on either SQL Server SP4 and/or Windows 2000 Server SP4? Can you please provide links? Thanks.