- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- HPE ProLiant
- >
- ProLiant Servers - Netservers
- >
- Re: Abysmal read performance from ML350 G5
ProLiant Servers - Netservers
1753485
Members
4163
Online
108794
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
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
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- 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
05-15-2007 04:00 AM
05-15-2007 04:00 AM
Abysmal read performance from ML350 G5
It's using the Smart Array E200i controller, with the 128MB BBWC upgrade. Xeon 5140 (2.33), 4 GB, 5 HDD's, Datacenter Server x64 Ed.
It could be the onboard E200i is too weak for what I'm running. First 3 drives are RAID5'd, with two partitions (OS and user data), another drive has 2 VM's, and a fifth drive has another 2 VM's. That sounds really heavy, but the VM's are small, and about 15 users are currently using the file server. Memory use peaks at around 2.5 GB. ("Available" physical memory is around 600 MB). This problem came to my attention when I configured a backup which took 33 hours to complete - older servers backed up at around 168 MB/min, while the new server averaged 13.8 MB/min. (Backup Exec agent is in use on all servers and media server has a 100Mb/full connection to the same fabric the other servers are on.)
Here's a test I ran. I copied a 176 MB folder containing a mix of small and medium-size files. First, from an older server to my PC, over a 100Mb/s port. It took 40 seconds. I copied the same folder from my PC to the new server, it took 25 seconds. I then copied the same folder from the new server back to my PC - 3 minutes and 35 seconds.
Where should I start looking for problems? I can't spend money on more RAM or another controller unless I'm sure it's going to fix the problem. Cheers!
It could be the onboard E200i is too weak for what I'm running. First 3 drives are RAID5'd, with two partitions (OS and user data), another drive has 2 VM's, and a fifth drive has another 2 VM's. That sounds really heavy, but the VM's are small, and about 15 users are currently using the file server. Memory use peaks at around 2.5 GB. ("Available" physical memory is around 600 MB). This problem came to my attention when I configured a backup which took 33 hours to complete - older servers backed up at around 168 MB/min, while the new server averaged 13.8 MB/min. (Backup Exec agent is in use on all servers and media server has a 100Mb/full connection to the same fabric the other servers are on.)
Here's a test I ran. I copied a 176 MB folder containing a mix of small and medium-size files. First, from an older server to my PC, over a 100Mb/s port. It took 40 seconds. I copied the same folder from my PC to the new server, it took 25 seconds. I then copied the same folder from the new server back to my PC - 3 minutes and 35 seconds.
Where should I start looking for problems? I can't spend money on more RAM or another controller unless I'm sure it's going to fix the problem. Cheers!
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-16-2007 06:40 AM
05-16-2007 06:40 AM
Re: Abysmal read performance from ML350 G5
As a side note - it makes no difference if the share I'm copying to and from resides on the raid array or on a lone disk.
And another fun fact -
Folders will copy between partitions at expected rates - a 500 MB folder will copy to the RAID 5 array in about 30 seconds, and will copy to a lone disk in 15 seconds. This is a relief, since it means the SAS controller isn't too much a bottleneck - I think?
Free points and my undying love to anyone who answers :p Come on - I bet it's something obvious.
And another fun fact -
Folders will copy between partitions at expected rates - a 500 MB folder will copy to the RAID 5 array in about 30 seconds, and will copy to a lone disk in 15 seconds. This is a relief, since it means the SAS controller isn't too much a bottleneck - I think?
Free points and my undying love to anyone who answers :p Come on - I bet it's something obvious.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP