- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Disk
- >
- SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
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
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
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
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
05-19-2006 06:50 AM
05-19-2006 06:50 AM
We may be making the shift to SAS, but with 146 & 300 GB drives sizes available on U320 (I know performance is best with a large number of small drives versus these large drives) I might be hard-pressed to move to SAS without some valid performance data. The ability to address twice as many devices on SAS as you can on U320 isn't a factor for us at this time, but the performance differences is. Thank you very much for any information you can provide.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-19-2006 09:32 AM
05-19-2006 09:32 AM
Re: SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
As U320 drives are on the same bus they share 320MB/sec bandwidth. Every drive has certain limitations & you could roughly assume that up to 4 drives on U320 bus will not fill the bandwidth anyway.
And you have multi-channel U320 controllers, 2 or 4, so in theory you could have e.g. 16 U320 drives in the same array not being 'bus-constrained'.
SAS is definitely the way of the future, but taking into account current capacities it's still some sort of a hype rather than real performance benefit.
Rgds.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-22-2006 02:01 AM
05-22-2006 02:01 AM
Re: SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
As you mentioned, the limited capacities for the SAS drives and the availability of dual/quad-port array controllers for U320 make it difficult for me to abandon the proven U320 technology for SAS, but our HP rep mentioned that HP is going SAS and the next versions of SAS promise even better throughput (6Gb/sec).
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-22-2006 02:11 AM
05-22-2006 02:11 AM
SolutionBut again - don't let yourself be brain-washed with the throughput figure. Your system is always as fast as your NARROWEST part of the entire data pipe. Yes, SAS is cool, etc. But look e.g. at the PCI-X slot - you will not pump more through it than 1GB/s roughly. Hence only three 3Gbit/s SAS lines will saturate this (assuming you have hard drives fast enough to do this).
On the top of that in real world we often need random, not sequential performance (e.g. in a database environment) - and for that a bus bandwith is not the limiting factor.
Rgds.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-22-2006 03:58 AM
05-22-2006 03:58 AM
Re: SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
Thanks again for your response.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-22-2006 10:59 PM
05-22-2006 10:59 PM
Re: SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
If you check this document, you can find that the same disk model can be delivered with different interfaces (LVD/FC/SAS/). But the performance specifications is exact the same, regardless of the type of interface.
So, the interface will have very little impact, the type of disk is more iportant.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-23-2006 01:08 AM
05-23-2006 01:08 AM
Re: SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
Thank you for your response. Yes, I had forgotten that the devices I would be connecting to will be the most important factor regardless of the connection method. I suppose I'll make sure that if SAS is selected that we employ 15K drives as well.
By the way, I noted in your profile that you are from Sweden. My father's family emigrated from Halsingland to northern Minnesota back in the late 1800's. My father is still doing the research on the rest of the family tree.
Tack så hemskt mycket!
Scott
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-23-2006 08:04 AM
05-23-2006 08:04 AM
Re: SAS vs. U320 Performance with RAID5
Hence in theory you could stream up to 2GB/s through the slot.
But again - it's rather hard drive spec which will limit the overall performance, than it's interface (especially with random read / writes)