Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo - Storage

This is a discussion on Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo - Storage ; On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:50:35 GMT, Faeandar wrote: >On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:18:44 GMT, jlsue >wrote: > >>Nothing but FUD. >> > >Uh, ok. Want to clarify which part exactly? I've had HP come in and >give their ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo

  1. Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:50:35 GMT, Faeandar
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:18:44 GMT, jlsue
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Nothing but FUD.
    >>

    >
    >Uh, ok. Want to clarify which part exactly? I've had HP come in and
    >give their pitch on this and the one thing that is not in question
    >whatsoever is the single controller issue. Hell, they even admit to
    >that being a performance issue.


    BS. Unless you test a specific workload, you do not know what the
    performance characteristics of that workload will be.

    In fact, the actual controller is not often the bottleneck as much as
    the disk spindles.

    In practice, having lots of spindles to service an I/O in a LUN on the
    EVA will alleviate more bottleneck problems that most workloads see -
    in my experience.

    >
    >Now, given that, how do you think this box can compete with arrays
    >that can allow data access through multiple controllers?
    >


    The assumption is that the controller is the bottleneck. Something
    which is not necessarily true, and especially at the 2TB EVA3000 level
    that the original poster is considering.

    All that said, the new EVA series announcements will greatly improve
    this performance.
    --- jls
    The preceding message was personal opinion only.
    I do not speak in any authorized capacity for anyone,
    and certainly not my employer.

  2. Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:10:27 GMT, jlsue
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:50:35 GMT, Faeandar
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:18:44 GMT, jlsue
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Nothing but FUD.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Uh, ok. Want to clarify which part exactly? I've had HP come in and
    >>give their pitch on this and the one thing that is not in question
    >>whatsoever is the single controller issue. Hell, they even admit to
    >>that being a performance issue.

    >
    >BS. Unless you test a specific workload, you do not know what the
    >performance characteristics of that workload will be.


    That was direct from the HP engineers so take it up with them. IO
    patterns are only a consideration when they don't require more than an
    aggregate of a single controller, usually around 80MB/sec.

    >
    >In fact, the actual controller is not often the bottleneck as much as
    >the disk spindles.


    You're saying that 64 drives would be a bottleneck and not the single
    controller in front of them? Right.

    >
    >In practice, having lots of spindles to service an I/O in a LUN on the
    >EVA will alleviate more bottleneck problems that most workloads see -
    >in my experience.


    A single LUN means a single system mounting it, generally. The shared
    aspect of SAN means more than one LUN and more than system would be
    accessing data behind that controller.

    >
    >>
    >>Now, given that, how do you think this box can compete with arrays
    >>that can allow data access through multiple controllers?
    >>

    >
    >The assumption is that the controller is the bottleneck. Something
    >which is not necessarily true, and especially at the 2TB EVA3000 level
    >that the original poster is considering.


    Again, not an assumption but a fact stated by HP. You should talk to
    them more without your rose colored glasses on.
    Ask the hard questions that you apparently don't want the answers to.

    I'm not saying the EVA doesn't have a place, the virtualization
    capabilities of that single controller are actually cool. But as I
    said, if performance is your main concern then the EVA is not on the
    short list. Not by a long shot.

    ~F

  3. Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:02:08 GMT, Faeandar
    wrote:


    >>
    >>BS. Unless you test a specific workload, you do not know what the
    >>performance characteristics of that workload will be.

    >
    >That was direct from the HP engineers so take it up with them. IO
    >patterns are only a consideration when they don't require more than an
    >aggregate of a single controller, usually around 80MB/sec.


    Again, you are trying to take a discussion that most likely covered
    your specific circumstance, and are trying to apply it fully
    everywhere.

    There are 4 ports, two for each controller, and each controller can
    manage their own sets of LUNs. So the aggregate is much higher than
    you claim.

    >
    >>
    >>In fact, the actual controller is not often the bottleneck as much as
    >>the disk spindles.

    >
    >You're saying that 64 drives would be a bottleneck and not the single
    >controller in front of them? Right.


    No. I am saying that in practice, the bottleneck isn't as bad as you
    might make it out to be for most people. But I'm also trying to be
    very careful and limit it to this specific request, which was 2TB with
    14 drives.

    In my real-world EXPERIENCE, this environment will most likely not hit
    any controller bottlenecks.

    >
    >>
    >>In practice, having lots of spindles to service an I/O in a LUN on the
    >>EVA will alleviate more bottleneck problems that most workloads see -
    >>in my experience.

    >
    >A single LUN means a single system mounting it, generally. The shared
    >aspect of SAN means more than one LUN and more than system would be
    >accessing data behind that controller.


    Both controllers are active. 2-ports each.

    >>The assumption is that the controller is the bottleneck. Something
    >>which is not necessarily true, and especially at the 2TB EVA3000 level
    >>that the original poster is considering.

    >
    >Again, not an assumption but a fact stated by HP. You should talk to
    >them more without your rose colored glasses on.
    >Ask the hard questions that you apparently don't want the answers to.


    Your interpretation of information stated by HP, actually. I HAVE
    talked to them, many times, and in the context of many different
    customer environments. There is no one-size-fits-all as your
    "explanation" seems to portray.

    The real difference is that I not only have real-world experience in
    many different environments, but that even with all that, I'm not
    foolish to claim I know the issues this particular person will have.
    I recognize that specific instances need a bit more investigation.

    >
    >I'm not saying the EVA doesn't have a place, the virtualization
    >capabilities of that single controller are actually cool. But as I
    >said, if performance is your main concern then the EVA is not on the
    >short list. Not by a long shot.


    Not only are you incorrect about the "single controller" issue, but
    you are drawing broad-based conclusions that may not apply to specific
    circumstances - especially in this case, with only 14 drives and 2TB
    of storage.

    I've seen fully-configured EVA5000s that were hit very heavily, and
    the so-called performance issues you claim were never evident in the
    customer's applications.

    --- jls
    The preceding message was personal opinion only.
    I do not speak in any authorized capacity for anyone,
    and certainly not my employer.

  4. Re: HP EVA3000" vs IBM DS4300 Turbo

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:41:42 GMT, jlsue
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:02:08 GMT, Faeandar
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>BS. Unless you test a specific workload, you do not know what the
    >>>performance characteristics of that workload will be.

    >>
    >>That was direct from the HP engineers so take it up with them. IO
    >>patterns are only a consideration when they don't require more than an
    >>aggregate of a single controller, usually around 80MB/sec.

    >
    >Again, you are trying to take a discussion that most likely covered
    >your specific circumstance, and are trying to apply it fully
    >everywhere.
    >
    >There are 4 ports, two for each controller, and each controller can
    >manage their own sets of LUNs. So the aggregate is much higher than
    >you claim.


    Not when compared to say an HDS with up to 64 ports. Expensive yes
    but we're not talking about cost, just performance. As I've said
    before.

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>In fact, the actual controller is not often the bottleneck as much as
    >>>the disk spindles.

    >>
    >>You're saying that 64 drives would be a bottleneck and not the single
    >>controller in front of them? Right.

    >
    >No. I am saying that in practice, the bottleneck isn't as bad as you
    >might make it out to be for most people. But I'm also trying to be
    >very careful and limit it to this specific request, which was 2TB with
    >14 drives.
    >
    >In my real-world EXPERIENCE, this environment will most likely not hit
    >any controller bottlenecks.


    Wrong. We are having performance problems on an HDS 9980V full loaded
    with both ports and cache. It's a matter of number of hosts and IO
    type. If we can drag down that type of config there is zero way a 4
    port/2 controller system is going to make it. And we're not talking
    OLTP or anything, just plain ol databases for business modeling. Alot
    of hosts though. But that's one of the main reasons you get a SAN, to
    share. Otherwise you could get by with DAS.
    And this is not a spindle problem. We're taxing the fiber connections
    as well as the port capacity.
    FC drives can transfer data at 130 to 150MB/sec. So under even
    marginal conditions 2 drives will saturate a link, let alone a single
    controller.

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>In practice, having lots of spindles to service an I/O in a LUN on the
    >>>EVA will alleviate more bottleneck problems that most workloads see -
    >>>in my experience.

    >>
    >>A single LUN means a single system mounting it, generally. The shared
    >>aspect of SAN means more than one LUN and more than system would be
    >>accessing data behind that controller.

    >
    >Both controllers are active. 2-ports each.


    Again, minuscule comparitively.

    >
    >>>The assumption is that the controller is the bottleneck. Something
    >>>which is not necessarily true, and especially at the 2TB EVA3000 level
    >>>that the original poster is considering.

    >>
    >>Again, not an assumption but a fact stated by HP. You should talk to
    >>them more without your rose colored glasses on.
    >>Ask the hard questions that you apparently don't want the answers to.

    >
    >Your interpretation of information stated by HP, actually. I HAVE
    >talked to them, many times, and in the context of many different
    >customer environments. There is no one-size-fits-all as your
    >"explanation" seems to portray.


    I never said there was a one-size-fits-all, I even stated the exact
    opposite if you would read the post.
    It's hard to misinterpret this:
    ME: So all this virtualization has to happen behind one controller
    correct?
    HP: Yes
    ME: So that controller could be a serious bottleneck on throughput and
    potentially even IOPS?
    HP: Yes
    not alot of room for confusion there.

    >
    >The real difference is that I not only have real-world experience in
    >many different environments, but that even with all that, I'm not
    >foolish to claim I know the issues this particular person will have.
    >I recognize that specific instances need a bit more investigation.


    But you're foolish enough to claim I made statements I did not. What
    a gem.
    The OP asked about the EVA, I told them what I knew. The only thing I
    said against it was performance lacked, and this is true.

    >
    >>
    >>I'm not saying the EVA doesn't have a place, the virtualization
    >>capabilities of that single controller are actually cool. But as I
    >>said, if performance is your main concern then the EVA is not on the
    >>short list. Not by a long shot.

    >
    >Not only are you incorrect about the "single controller" issue, but
    >you are drawing broad-based conclusions that may not apply to specific
    >circumstances - especially in this case, with only 14 drives and 2TB
    >of storage.


    So when 2 drives saturate your single FC link to your controller, what
    do you do with the other 12?

    >
    >I've seen fully-configured EVA5000s that were hit very heavily, and
    >the so-called performance issues you claim were never evident in the
    >customer's applications.


    Application specific is not a performance benchmark unless the app has
    heavy performance requirements. "Hit very heavily" is pretty damn
    vague when it comes to IO patterns.

    ~F

+ Reply to Thread