A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Compaq Servers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Smart Array 642 + HP DL380



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 13th 06, 12:32 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
Jez T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380


"Mikael Antonsen" wrote
But still, 5x Write speed with that module.
I just dont think ppl that bought the 642 without would think.."ohh thats
a okai speed".
I know the acceleration will help in some ways yes, but still.
There really must be something wrong here.


Actually, most ppl who buy a 642 never bother testing disk performance, so
would never notice either way.

For an objective performance, try IOMETER
http://www.iometer.org/
That's the 'standard' for testing disk performance.

I have a customer right now (Danish, ironically) who's complaining of a
similar problem. We have just put a LOT of resource into proving that the
performance is actually about right for the system, and I have to ring him
tomorrow to explain to him why he's a complete ****wit...


  #12  
Old December 13th 06, 12:36 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
Jez T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380


"NuTCrAcKeR" wrote
call HP and complain.

- LC


Please do, and let us know how you get on - I'm quite curious to see how
long it takes you to get a decent answer from the DK Proliant team... I'd
almost go as far as to putting money on it that they offer to sell you a new
SA642, withoug asking you for an IOmeter report, or probably even an ADU
report.


  #13  
Old December 13th 06, 12:39 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
Nut Cracker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380

Actually ... another tool that is VERY useful to testing/stressing disk
systems is JetStress, from our buddies at MS. We use it all the time to
benchmark new cluster implimentations, and confirm that our configurations
will deliver what the customer's target IOPs are. They dont want to know
exactly how many IOPs the system is capable of, just weather or not the
system can sustain thier usages models.

We went for broke once and cranked up all the manual settings to rediculous
values. We exceeded thier requirements by a mere 1700+ %, and our storage
management guys called us and wanted to know what we were doing because we
were "melting the symmetrix" .... heheheh

- LC

"Jez T" wrote in message
...

"Mikael Antonsen" wrote
But still, 5x Write speed with that module.
I just dont think ppl that bought the 642 without would think.."ohh thats
a okai speed".
I know the acceleration will help in some ways yes, but still.
There really must be something wrong here.


Actually, most ppl who buy a 642 never bother testing disk performance, so
would never notice either way.

For an objective performance, try IOMETER
http://www.iometer.org/
That's the 'standard' for testing disk performance.

I have a customer right now (Danish, ironically) who's complaining of a
similar problem. We have just put a LOT of resource into proving that the
performance is actually about right for the system, and I have to ring him
tomorrow to explain to him why he's a complete ****wit...



  #14  
Old December 13th 06, 12:40 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
Nut Cracker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380


"Jez T" wrote in message
...

Well anyways cant be right that even if not all that is done, the write
speed is 10MB/s, that is just DAMN slow, and even 12 HDD's?
I tried with the same bay on a Smart Array 5300 controller, and then i
got like 50-70MB/s in write, that is "okai",


SA5300 has a write cache.

but still not what i would call good, but its 100MB/s read.
Do you think that a Battery module would help THAT much?


Oh yes!!!


See ?


  #15  
Old December 13th 06, 09:21 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
Mikael Antonsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380

Jez T skrev:
"Mikael Antonsen" wrote
But still, 5x Write speed with that module.
I just dont think ppl that bought the 642 without would think.."ohh thats
a okai speed".
I know the acceleration will help in some ways yes, but still.
There really must be something wrong here.


Actually, most ppl who buy a 642 never bother testing disk performance, so
would never notice either way.

For an objective performance, try IOMETER
http://www.iometer.org/
That's the 'standard' for testing disk performance.


what cluster size do you normally test with in IOMETER ?

And yes it seems like you guys really mean that 10MB/s is okai for a
raidcontroller without Battery stuff.
I really dont think they would make a raidcontroller that would perform
so slow?
  #16  
Old December 13th 06, 02:23 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
NuTCrAcKeR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380


"Mikael Antonsen" wrote in message
. ..
Jez T skrev:
"Mikael Antonsen" wrote
But still, 5x Write speed with that module.
I just dont think ppl that bought the 642 without would think.."ohh
thats a okai speed".
I know the acceleration will help in some ways yes, but still.
There really must be something wrong here.


Actually, most ppl who buy a 642 never bother testing disk performance,
so would never notice either way.

For an objective performance, try IOMETER
http://www.iometer.org/
That's the 'standard' for testing disk performance.


what cluster size do you normally test with in IOMETER ?

And yes it seems like you guys really mean that 10MB/s is okai for a
raidcontroller without Battery stuff.
I really dont think they would make a raidcontroller that would perform so
slow?


there are many, many factors that determine array controller performance.
None of us are saying that 10MB/s is "okai", just that it is not suprising
given your setup, and lack of other important details in your post.

Determining your cluster size can be a tricky thing. What it comes down to
is what type of application(s) you are running on your server, and what is
optimal for those apps. If its MSSQL ... 64K. If its Exchange, 4K. If its a
file/print server, it then depneds on your typical data sets ... hundreds of
large files, hundreds of thousands of small files ???? There is no
one-size-fits-all that will get the best performance in all cases. Beware
that you can adversely affect performance, AND waste disk space if you do
not use the optimal cluster size. Trial and error is usually a fair approach
to figuring this out. Also, with windows (i dont do opensource), the
cluster size is determined at the time you format your partions. The only
volume you do not get this choice with is your boot partition, as that is
created for you during setup.

Also take into consideration the Stripe Size (how much data is
read-from/written-to the disk at a time. a 16K stripe will out perform a 4K
stripe in most cases. I usually use the highest value available (128K or
256K), depending on the controller.

How did you do your testing to determine what your performance was ?

- LC


  #17  
Old December 13th 06, 03:26 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq.servers
Mikael Antonsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Smart Array 642 + HP DL380

NuTCrAcKeR skrev:
"Mikael Antonsen" wrote in message
. ..
Jez T skrev:
"Mikael Antonsen" wrote
But still, 5x Write speed with that module.
I just dont think ppl that bought the 642 without would think.."ohh
thats a okai speed".
I know the acceleration will help in some ways yes, but still.
There really must be something wrong here.
Actually, most ppl who buy a 642 never bother testing disk performance,
so would never notice either way.

For an objective performance, try IOMETER
http://www.iometer.org/
That's the 'standard' for testing disk performance.

what cluster size do you normally test with in IOMETER ?

And yes it seems like you guys really mean that 10MB/s is okai for a
raidcontroller without Battery stuff.
I really dont think they would make a raidcontroller that would perform so
slow?


there are many, many factors that determine array controller performance.
None of us are saying that 10MB/s is "okai", just that it is not suprising
given your setup, and lack of other important details in your post.

Determining your cluster size can be a tricky thing. What it comes down to
is what type of application(s) you are running on your server, and what is
optimal for those apps. If its MSSQL ... 64K. If its Exchange, 4K. If its a
file/print server, it then depneds on your typical data sets ... hundreds of
large files, hundreds of thousands of small files ???? There is no
one-size-fits-all that will get the best performance in all cases. Beware
that you can adversely affect performance, AND waste disk space if you do
not use the optimal cluster size. Trial and error is usually a fair approach
to figuring this out. Also, with windows (i dont do opensource), the
cluster size is determined at the time you format your partions. The only
volume you do not get this choice with is your boot partition, as that is
created for you during setup.

Also take into consideration the Stripe Size (how much data is
read-from/written-to the disk at a time. a 16K stripe will out perform a 4K
stripe in most cases. I usually use the highest value available (128K or
256K), depending on the controller.

How did you do your testing to determine what your performance was ?

- LC


I just ran IOMETER on the array.
Both at formatted drive and without, no really effect.
Well maybe the cluster size can change the speed, but are we talking
from 10MB/s here to like 50MB/s or? or is there really a problem with
the controller in the first place.
As i said i tried with a Smart Array 5300 controller, all i did was swap
the bay cable to the other controller.
And then iometer with a "10000" sector its like 100MB/s in write, and
same in write.
I would love to do some more tests, and uses other programs.
I talked to a guy who have had same problem with 642, but only when it
was in another machine than compaq.
But the 642 is in DL380 G3.

-Mikael
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recover array after replacing failed Smart Array 3200 controller on Proliant 1600 [email protected] Compaq Servers 7 November 30th 06 07:00 PM
Compaq Proliant 5500R- Smart Array 3200 Controller to slow ? Sebastian Gödecke Compaq Servers 11 September 19th 06 06:31 PM
Compaq Smart Array 532 Controller - Raid 1 Query Richard Denny Compaq Servers 3 November 24th 04 01:15 AM
RAID Array "Off Line" on P4C800-E Deluxe macleme Asus Motherboards 4 September 1st 04 07:22 PM
Critical errors? ATA Error Count Al Bogner Storage (alternative) 0 June 13th 04 12:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.