Torrey, > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:32 PM > > You might want to check the specs of the the 3510. In some > configs you > only get 2 ports. However, in others you can get 8.
Really? 8 active Fibre Channel ports? Can you post the link? > In any > case though > throughput is important the amount of iops you can load the > controller > or drives is often more important. Thus my posted benchmark of 2500 seeks per second. Got any results on a 3510 with HW RAID? Please post Bonnie++ version 1.03 results here. > Yes, in a highly > sequential workload > you're going to blow right through the cache and hit the > drives - If the > array is smart which more are these days - but those highly > sequential > workloads are not found as often as others. Business Intelligence is one. See the 2,500 seeks per second above. > You're comparing apples to a crate of apples. A more useful > comparison > would be something along the lines a single R0 LUN on a 3510 with > controller to a single 3510-JBOD with ZFS across all the drives. My point is that the 3510 with two active Fibre channel connections is going to be channel limited on sequential access by over 3 to 1 (14 drives x 80MB/s per drive compared to 2 x 200MB/s Fibre Channel), which sux no matter how you slice it. WRT the random access performance, the 3510 with and without HW RAID might be an interesting test. I would expect the HW RAID to outperform by a bit there because of the closer proximity of the CPU to the I/O channels. If you think of the X4500 as a whomping RAID controller though, it's more of a fair comparison to take 14 drives in a X4500 and compare 14 drives in a 3510. I think you'd be surprised there. - Luke _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
