Maybe it would be a good ideer to create a new template for the results, that does not take up so much space in the thread.

And maybe a template to upload the result to a file for easy of download-import-compare results.

Oh yeah .. Someone should take all the results from the old thread and implement into the new template and post them to this thread..

I will leave it up to christianZ to make the new template first. Maybe if I run into unemployment, I will consider taking the task. christianZ

Hi guys,

I did some testing on our ESX hosts and I'm getting the feeling that there's room for improvement.
Altough I'm finding it hard to compare our test to other tests posted earlier, because there's always something different in each configuration.
Does anyone have an opinion on our test results?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TABLE oF RESULTS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SERVER TYPE: VM
CPU TYPE / NUMBER: VCPU / 1
HOST TYPE: HP DL385, 16GB RAM; 2x AMD Opteron 285 (2.6 GHz), Dualcore, QLA4050C
STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: NetApp 3140 / 41 Disks x 274 GB / Double Parity

##################################################################################
TEST NAME-------------------Av. Resp. Time ms------Av. IOs/sek-------Av. MB/sek---
##################################################################################

Max Throughput-100%Read......___26.85____......._2204.42__........._68.89___

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read..___21.82____.......__504.14__.........__3.94___

Max Throughput-50%Read........___14.58____.......__577.82__........._18.06___

Random-8k-70%Read...............___37.06____.......__489.40__.........__3.82___

EXCEPTIONS: CPU Util. 32% - 15% - 18% - 15%;

##################################################################################

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SERVER TYPE: VM - Win2k3 R2
CPU TYPE / NUMBER: CPU / 1
HOST TYPE: VM, 1GB RAM; 1x vCPU
STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: VMDK/VMFS via FC to SANmelody mirror

2x SANmelody 2.04 update 1 with a LUN each from the same array: HDS AMS2100 with 15x 10k SAS 400gb. 2gb cache.

SANmelody has 8gb ram - The LUN is spread on (long description gone short) 15 spindles.

##################################################################################
TEST NAME-------------------Av. Resp. Time ms------Av. IOs/sek-------Av. MB/sek------
##################################################################################
(Gennem VI3 Client)
Max Throughput-100%Read........1.528815..........27032.........844.767__100% Seen via the VI3 Client -> (108mb/sec r - 1mb/sec w) (100% cpu)

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read......17.870013..........2253.........17.602__62% Seen via the VI3 Client -> ( 13mb/sec r - 7mb/sec w) (50% cpu)

Max Throughput-50%Read..........3.970814..........12957.........404.909_ 67% Seen via the VI3 Client -> (217mb/sec r - 217mb/sec w) (82% cpu)

Random-8k-70%Read.................15.559686..........2802.........21.897___57% Seen via the VI3 Client -> ( 15mb/sec r - 7mb/sec w) (57% cpu)

EXCEPTIONS: CPU Util.-Is listed after the Av. MB/sek

##################################################################################
I know the first test - 100% read is off because of the 100% on vCPU = time is foooked.

But the other results are pretty impressive. or whats our opinion?

Forgot to mention... These tests was done while in production. So there was 30 vm working against the same SANmelody servers. (On a different ESX servers offcourse. )

Raid description gone long:

2 RAID5 groups with 7+1 10k SAS 400gb disks

In each Raid group we create 4x 640gb disks - so in total 8 disk of 640gb

Take on 640gb disk from each group and create a lun of 1280gb which is presented to the Datacore server. One for each which put in a pool where from i create a Virtual Vol as a VMFS to ESX. On the VMFS i create a VMDK to the VM, where i testing on.

Sorry, but its a bit detailed.

Description added.

In short the test lun spread on every disk. Almost like EVA storage systems.

The first test is on a 5 disk Raid 5 array and the second is on a 6 disk raid 5 array. It's interesting to compare these results to jmacdaddy's (page 22 of the original unoffical test results) MD3000i RAID 5 test results as the MD3000i is a Dell badged DS3300. I'll be receiving the cache module upgrades sometime this week and will upload test results to show any difference they have when I get the time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TABLE OF RESULTS 1X VM WIN2003 R2 SP2 / ESX 3.5 ON IBM DS3300
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SERVER TYPE: VM.
CPU TYPE / NUMBER: VCPU / 1
HOST TYPE: HP DL380 G5, 10GB RAM, 2 x Intel E5440, 2.83GHz, QuadCore
STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: IBM DS3300 (512MB CACHE/SP) / 5 SAS 15k/ R5
SAN TYPE / HBAs : Ethernet 1Gb; VMWare iSCSI software initiator (Intel 82571EB NIC)

##################################################################################
TEST NAME-------------------Av. Resp. Time ms------Av. IOs/sek-------Av. MB/sek------
##################################################################################

Max Throughput-100%Read........___16.99_____.......___3486.8_____.....____108.9______

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read......_____48.89____.....____1062.7____.....____8.3______

Max Throughput-50%Read.........____22.9____.....______2579.9______.....____80.6______

Random-8k-70%Read..............____44.72_____.....____1204______.....____9.41______

EXCEPTIONS: No Jumbo Frames, no flow control, ethernet switch has storage vlan but is shared with LAN,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TABLE OF RESULTS 1X VM WIN2003 R2 SP2 / ESX 3.5 ON IBM DS3300
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SERVER TYPE: VM.
CPU TYPE / NUMBER: VCPU / 1
HOST TYPE: HP DL380 G5, 10GB RAM, 2 x Intel E5440, 2.83GHz, QuadCore
STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: IBM DS3300 (512MB CACHE/SP) / 6 SAS 15k/ R5
SAN TYPE / HBAs : Ethernet 1Gb; VMWare iSCSI software initiator (Intel 82571EB NIC)

##################################################################################
TEST NAME-------------------Av. Resp. Time ms------Av. IOs/sek-------Av. MB/sek------
##################################################################################

Max Throughput-100%Read........___16.7_____.......___3552_____.....____111______

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read......_____40.6____.....____1293.2____.....____10.1______

Max Throughput-50%Read.........____20.33____.....______2955.16______.....____92.3______

Random-8k-70%Read..............____36.8_____.....____1449.2______.....____11.3______

EXCEPTIONS: No Jumbo Frames, no flow control, ethernet switch has storage vlan but is shared with LAN,

Last weekend I listened the "Talk Shoe", recorded episode no. 40 (http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=19367)

And I can't agree with the statement that all the benchmarking tests (especially storage) don't matter.

Well, until now I haven't seen any storage gear that benchmarked poor (I'm speaking about rational tests) and then in the production worked fast (or vice versa).

Of course one should use his own mind by analyzing of benchmark results - remember the storage is crucial for your VI infrastructure and it can be the most expensive component there.

The benchmarks are a kind of workload too - and if they are mixed, they can give some interesting view points.

It would be nice to know what is the max. throughput of series "A" from vendor "X" by deciding which gear to chose - this way one can avoid buying of insufficient boxes.

It would be nice to know, that one can get the specific throughput by vendor "X" or by vendor "Y" on the half of price.

As a customer one can get better proposals by comparing of competitors products.

For SMB it would be interesting to know that the needed performance you can buy by 3.rd storage vendors also but on the smaller price.

But I agree (as I wrote in my first posting in the original thread) the benchmarks results shouldn't be the only decision's factor.
The quality of services, reliability, vendors support, managment/simplicity of using and config, vendors connections, distribution, ... as well healthy mind aren't to forget.

Anyway until now I listened all the episodes - good work - keep it going.

Just my opinion, but maybe I'm not alone here.

Reg
Christian