Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS - Storage

This is a discussion on Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS - Storage ; One of the windows application needs storage for its own database storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk. At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better between CIFS share ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

  1. Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
    storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
    At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
    between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.

    Raju


  2. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On 31 Mar 2007 01:53:56 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
    >storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
    >At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
    >between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.
    >
    >Raju


    If the application requires performance then go iSCSI, it is faster
    assuming everything else is constant. I'm assuming your backend
    options are limited and that is why NetApp is your only choice. If
    performance is the primary driver then nothing beats DAS. Nothing.

    If performance is not your biggest issue then go CIFS if the app
    supports it. Even though NetApp has some very nice features with
    iSCSI and SnapDrive it's still not as simple as a cifs share. And
    simplicity is priceless.

    ~F

  3. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On Mar 31, 9:58 pm, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 31 Mar 2007 01:53:56 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
    > >storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
    > >At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
    > >between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.

    >
    > >Raju

    >
    > If the application requires performance then go iSCSI, it is faster
    > assuming everything else is constant. I'm assuming your backend
    > options are limited and that is why NetApp is your only choice. If
    > performance is the primary driver then nothing beats DAS. Nothing.
    >
    > If performance is not your biggest issue then go CIFS if the app
    > supports it. Even though NetApp has some very nice features with
    > iSCSI and SnapDrive it's still not as simple as a cifs share. And
    > simplicity is priceless.
    >
    > ~F


    Application is NetApp DFM which is hosted on Windows machine but local
    disk size is only 40GB and current DFM DB size is 34GB so soon will be
    bottleneck thats why decided to put DB on remote disk. Currently its
    on CIFS share and working fine as far as NetApp monitoring is
    concerned but there is one problem. During DB backup it hangs up after
    around 50-60% completion. Then I stop the DFM monitor service then it
    starts again. I don't know why. Another thing I feel when it is
    accessed through another hosts web browser then I feel it is
    responding little bit slow.
    Thats why I was thinking if it is hosted on iSCSI then may be
    situation improves. What do you suggest, may be due to CIFS.
    I agree simplicity is priceless and CIFS is realy verys much simple
    compare to iSCSI.

    - Raju


  4. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On 31 Mar 2007 10:59:53 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >On Mar 31, 9:58 pm, Faeandar wrote:
    >> On 31 Mar 2007 01:53:56 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
    >> >storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
    >> >At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
    >> >between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.

    >>
    >> >Raju

    >>
    >> If the application requires performance then go iSCSI, it is faster
    >> assuming everything else is constant. I'm assuming your backend
    >> options are limited and that is why NetApp is your only choice. If
    >> performance is the primary driver then nothing beats DAS. Nothing.
    >>
    >> If performance is not your biggest issue then go CIFS if the app
    >> supports it. Even though NetApp has some very nice features with
    >> iSCSI and SnapDrive it's still not as simple as a cifs share. And
    >> simplicity is priceless.
    >>
    >> ~F

    >
    >Application is NetApp DFM which is hosted on Windows machine but local
    >disk size is only 40GB and current DFM DB size is 34GB so soon will be
    >bottleneck thats why decided to put DB on remote disk. Currently its
    >on CIFS share and working fine as far as NetApp monitoring is
    >concerned but there is one problem. During DB backup it hangs up after
    >around 50-60% completion. Then I stop the DFM monitor service then it
    >starts again. I don't know why. Another thing I feel when it is
    >accessed through another hosts web browser then I feel it is
    >responding little bit slow.
    >Thats why I was thinking if it is hosted on iSCSI then may be
    >situation improves. What do you suggest, may be due to CIFS.
    >I agree simplicity is priceless and CIFS is realy verys much simple
    >compare to iSCSI.
    >
    >- Raju



    A couple of things. Hosting a monitoring tool's db on the very thing
    your monitoring is probably not the best approach.

    The DFM database has a recommended max size of 4GB. Ours is around
    9GB and we are having issues on DAS. I am very suprised to to hear
    you are not having serious issues at 34GB. It's possible that the
    problems you are seeing are due to the size. I would highly recommend
    you contact support on this, if for no other reason than to verify
    your configuration.

    We're using Linux as our DFM server and NetApp recommended puting the
    db over NFS but we are not inclined to do so due to my first point.

    iSCSI may solve your backup issue but I would still recommend
    contacting support for verification. In either case I think your
    response time from a browser is going to be slow.

    ~F

  5. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS


    "Raju Mahala" wrote in message
    news:1175331236.411538.53300@l77g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
    > One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
    > storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
    > At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
    > between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.
    >
    > Raju
    >


    Run DataMover's Performance Test, and compare the empirical results. You'll
    need to request a license to perform these tests.

    http://www.moojit.net/Networking/downloads.shtml

    The Moojit



  6. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On Apr 1, 9:48 pm, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 31 Mar 2007 10:59:53 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Mar 31, 9:58 pm, Faeandar wrote:
    > >> On 31 Mar 2007 01:53:56 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >One of the windows application needs storage for its own database
    > >> >storage which may be hosted on CIFS share or iSCSI disk.
    > >> >At storage end I have NetApp storage so I want to know what is better
    > >> >between CIFS share or iSCSI disk on performance basis.

    >
    > >> >Raju

    >
    > >> If the application requires performance then go iSCSI, it is faster
    > >> assuming everything else is constant. I'm assuming your backend
    > >> options are limited and that is why NetApp is your only choice. If
    > >> performance is the primary driver then nothing beats DAS. Nothing.

    >
    > >> If performance is not your biggest issue then go CIFS if the app
    > >> supports it. Even though NetApp has some very nice features with
    > >> iSCSI and SnapDrive it's still not as simple as a cifs share. And
    > >> simplicity is priceless.

    >
    > >> ~F

    >
    > >Application is NetApp DFM which is hosted on Windows machine but local
    > >disk size is only 40GB and current DFM DB size is 34GB so soon will be
    > >bottleneck thats why decided to put DB on remote disk. Currently its
    > >on CIFS share and working fine as far as NetApp monitoring is
    > >concerned but there is one problem. During DB backup it hangs up after
    > >around 50-60% completion. Then I stop the DFM monitor service then it
    > >starts again. I don't know why. Another thing I feel when it is
    > >accessed through another hosts web browser then I feel it is
    > >responding little bit slow.
    > >Thats why I was thinking if it is hosted on iSCSI then may be
    > >situation improves. What do you suggest, may be due to CIFS.
    > >I agree simplicity is priceless and CIFS is realy verys much simple
    > >compare to iSCSI.

    >
    > >- Raju

    >
    > A couple of things. Hosting a monitoring tool's db on the very thing
    > your monitoring is probably not the best approach.
    >
    > The DFM database has a recommended max size of 4GB. Ours is around
    > 9GB and we are having issues on DAS. I am very suprised to to hear
    > you are not having serious issues at 34GB. It's possible that the
    > problems you are seeing are due to the size. I would highly recommend
    > you contact support on this, if for no other reason than to verify
    > your configuration.
    >
    > We're using Linux as our DFM server and NetApp recommended puting the
    > db over NFS but we are not inclined to do so due to my first point.
    >
    > iSCSI may solve your backup issue but I would still recommend
    > contacting support for verification. In either case I think your
    > response time from a browser is going to be slow.
    >
    > ~F- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    We are using Windows machine as our DFM server. I am not aware about
    the NetApp recommendation for the size of DFM Database (monitor.db
    file) but yes it is around 34GB as of now. There are not much problem
    except Database backup as mentioned earlier.
    But yes I should contact to Netapp PSE to get it verify. I update you
    on it.

    Do you have SRM integrated with DFM, may be big DB size is due to SRM
    having bits and bytes info.
    Tell me one thing if I stop DFM monitor service and then take DFM DB
    backup then would it be consistent ?

    Thanks & Regards,
    Raju


  7. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On 3 Apr 2007 10:51:33 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >We are using Windows machine as our DFM server. I am not aware about
    >the NetApp recommendation for the size of DFM Database (monitor.db
    >file) but yes it is around 34GB as of now. There are not much problem
    >except Database backup as mentioned earlier.
    >But yes I should contact to Netapp PSE to get it verify. I update you
    >on it.
    >
    >Do you have SRM integrated with DFM, may be big DB size is due to SRM
    >having bits and bytes info.
    >Tell me one thing if I stop DFM monitor service and then take DFM DB
    >backup then would it be consistent ?
    >
    >Thanks & Regards,
    >Raju


    The DFM backup scripts actually stop the db to guarantee consistency.
    If you do it manually, without stopping the db service, there is no
    such guarantee.

    However, if you know your polling frequency it is very likely it would
    be if you did it at the right time.

    ~F

  8. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On Apr 4, 12:19 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 3 Apr 2007 10:51:33 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >We are using Windows machine as our DFM server. I am not aware about
    > >the NetApp recommendation for the size of DFM Database (monitor.db
    > >file) but yes it is around 34GB as of now. There are not much problem
    > >except Database backup as mentioned earlier.
    > >But yes I should contact to Netapp PSE to get it verify. I update you
    > >on it.

    >
    > >Do you have SRM integrated with DFM, may be big DB size is due to SRM
    > >having bits and bytes info.
    > >Tell me one thing if I stop DFM monitor service and then take DFM DB
    > >backup then would it be consistent ?

    >
    > >Thanks & Regards,
    > >Raju

    >
    > The DFM backup scripts actually stop the db to guarantee consistency.
    > If you do it manually, without stopping the db service, there is no
    > such guarantee.
    >
    > However, if you know your polling frequency it is very likely it would
    > be if you did it at the right time.
    >
    > ~F


    I got it verified by NetApp TSE and according to him big DB size is
    due to SRM.

    How to change polling frequency. I am not aware about it so I hope its
    must be default value.

    - Raju


  9. Re: Permormance comparison between iSCSI or CIFS

    On 6 Apr 2007 04:05:53 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >On Apr 4, 12:19 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> On 3 Apr 2007 10:51:33 -0700, "Raju Mahala"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >We are using Windows machine as our DFM server. I am not aware about
    >> >the NetApp recommendation for the size of DFM Database (monitor.db
    >> >file) but yes it is around 34GB as of now. There are not much problem
    >> >except Database backup as mentioned earlier.
    >> >But yes I should contact to Netapp PSE to get it verify. I update you
    >> >on it.

    >>
    >> >Do you have SRM integrated with DFM, may be big DB size is due to SRM
    >> >having bits and bytes info.
    >> >Tell me one thing if I stop DFM monitor service and then take DFM DB
    >> >backup then would it be consistent ?

    >>
    >> >Thanks & Regards,
    >> >Raju

    >>
    >> The DFM backup scripts actually stop the db to guarantee consistency.
    >> If you do it manually, without stopping the db service, there is no
    >> such guarantee.
    >>
    >> However, if you know your polling frequency it is very likely it would
    >> be if you did it at the right time.
    >>
    >> ~F

    >
    >I got it verified by NetApp TSE and according to him big DB size is
    >due to SRM.
    >
    >How to change polling frequency. I am not aware about it so I hope its
    >must be default value.
    >
    >- Raju



    It depends on what version you are running. In the older "DFM"
    versions you changed it under options. In the new "Operations
    Manager" version it's under something else, bottom left of page but
    forget the names.

    ~F

+ Reply to Thread