SANergy and Polyserve - Storage

This is a discussion on SANergy and Polyserve - Storage ; Anyone have comments regarding a comparison of the two? I'm fairly well versed in Polyserve so anyone with background in SANergy would be a welcome commentator. I find little information, even from IBM, on this product; it's requirements, performance, and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: SANergy and Polyserve

  1. SANergy and Polyserve

    Anyone have comments regarding a comparison of the two? I'm fairly
    well versed in Polyserve so anyone with background in SANergy would be
    a welcome commentator.

    I find little information, even from IBM, on this product; it's
    requirements, performance, and architecture. The basics are there but
    I need to understand it much better than the marketing slides allow.

    Thanks.

    ~F

  2. Re: SANergy and Polyserve

    Faeandar wrote:
    > Anyone have comments regarding a comparison of the two? I'm fairly
    > well versed in Polyserve so anyone with background in SANergy would be
    > a welcome commentator.
    >
    > I find little information, even from IBM, on this product; it's
    > requirements, performance, and architecture. The basics are there but
    > I need to understand it much better than the marketing slides allow.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ~F


    I have a fair amount of experience with SANergy. The product is ok,
    but IBM's support of the product has seemed lackluster the last year
    or so. Whether or not SANergy would work will depend on the particular
    application in mind.

    In general, you have several machines attached to the storage you are
    sharing. One machine acts as a Meta Data Controller (MDC) which manages
    the file system locks. All machines but the MDC view the storage as a
    network share. File management traffic and small data accesses travel
    over the LAN while larger accesses make use of the SAN. Which network
    is used can be tuned by file size and file type.

    Performance is good with large files but when dealing with lots of
    small files and frequent file system changes such as file creation and
    deletion performance suffers. In general most SAN file systems seem to
    suffer from this so you would need to do some testing.

    As long as the hardware you have is reasonable modern there should not
    have any problems. We did one sale / installation into a site where
    some of the machines had ISA 10BT network cards and the performance
    was less than stellar.


  3. Re: SANergy and Polyserve

    If you are surveying this technology area you might want also want to
    include Red Hat GFS (formerly Sistina) or IBM's SAN File System (also
    known as Storage Tank in some circles).

    Faeandar wrote:
    > Anyone have comments regarding a comparison of the two? I'm fairly
    > well versed in Polyserve so anyone with background in SANergy would be
    > a welcome commentator.
    >
    > I find little information, even from IBM, on this product; it's
    > requirements, performance, and architecture. The basics are there but
    > I need to understand it much better than the marketing slides allow.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ~F



  4. Re: SANergy and Polyserve

    On 30 Jun 2005 10:25:42 -0700, "mf" wrote:

    >If you are surveying this technology area you might want also want to
    >include Red Hat GFS (formerly Sistina) or IBM's SAN File System (also
    >known as Storage Tank in some circles).
    >
    >Faeandar wrote:
    >> Anyone have comments regarding a comparison of the two? I'm fairly
    >> well versed in Polyserve so anyone with background in SANergy would be
    >> a welcome commentator.
    >>
    >> I find little information, even from IBM, on this product; it's
    >> requirements, performance, and architecture. The basics are there but
    >> I need to understand it much better than the marketing slides allow.
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>
    >> ~F


    Thanks but GFS is a very poor performer. Against Polyserve it was 30%
    slower, and that was PS out of the box and GFS configured by an
    engineer.

    IBM's SANFs has a decent paper presentation but like so many other
    products it doesn't do NFS failover.

    ~F

  5. Re: SANergy and Polyserve

    SGI's CXFS will not only out perform SANergy and Polyserve, it will
    also do NFS/Samba failover.

    David


  6. Re: SANergy and Polyserve

    On 1 Jul 2005 02:26:34 -0700, "Chatz"
    wrote:

    >SGI's CXFS will not only out perform SANergy and Polyserve, it will
    >also do NFS/Samba failover.
    >
    >David


    Actual failover? With file handles and everything? Where mid-stream
    writes will continue after a few retries?

    So many products think NFS failover is simply restarting the service
    on another host. This is by no means failover. Anything that
    requires clients to remount is not failover.

    But if CXFS can do this then they're a possibility. Do they run on
    Windows as well? That's one of Polyserve's strengths in my case.

    Thanks.

    ~F

  7. Re: SANergy and Polyserve

    The NFS/Samba failover is the usual two machine setup behind a virtual
    IP address. The NFS/Samba clients think they are talking to the same
    machine even though it has failed over. No remount required.
    http://www.sgi.com/products/software/failsafe/iris.html

    NFS/Samba scale exception well under IRIX, SGI now claim up to 800MB/s
    for streaming reads, 400MB/s streaming writes, on an 8CPU and 8x1Gb
    NICs for NFS.

    CXFS then gives you the ability for those machines and others (IRIX,
    linux, windows etc) to work with a clustered filesystem. ie each
    machine is on the SAN accessing the same filesystem at fibre channel
    speeds, rather than NFS/network speeds.
    http://www.sgi.com/products/storage/...e_systems.html

    Its then possible to have CXFS clients exporting the shared filesystem
    via NFS or Samba to scale even further, but in general SGI recommend
    just exporting from the CXFS server.

    David


+ Reply to Thread