++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TABLE OF RESULTS - VM on 4MB Block Size VMFS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SERVER TYPE: VM ON ESX 3.0.1
CPU TYPE / NUMBER: VCPU / 1
HOST TYPE: HP BL480c Blade, 16GB RAM; 2x XEON 5150 (Dualcore), 2,66 GHz,
STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: HP EVA4000 x 2 / 12 x 10k FC HDD on vRAID5
VMFS: 100GB LUN, 4MB Block Size
SAN TYPE / HBAs : 4GB FC, HP/QLogic QMH2462 Dual HBAs, Dual Brocade 4100 Switchesl

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

Max Throughput-100%Read.......__5.39_______......._10220.13_____....__321.71_____

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read......__19.25______......._2322.95_______...._18.20_______

Max Throughput-50%Read........__43.23_______.....__1249.08____....____39.03____

Random-8k-70%Read.............__18.27______......._2507.81______....__19.56______

EXCEPTIONS:

So, it would seem that;

1) VMFS block size seems to have little to no effect on performance.

2) RDM has minimal performance increases over VMFS (except in 100% sequential tests which just won't ever happen in the real world)

3) VMFS has minimal impact on performance, achieving approximately 98%+ of physical performance

Anyone care to comment with their experiences?

Dave

How about vmdks running in snapshot mode?

Gabrie

christian
thanks for that, my next set of tests are with normal ethernet frames with both ESX initiator andHBA's, i will run your icf as well and will post results

tests re run with MTU at 1500 and not jumbos,

appears tests RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read and Random-8k-70%Read are similar to before, the other 2 MAX tests have increased substantially.
Switch was Cisco 3750g does not make a lot of sense that jumbos are in fact slower!!!

Another observation from my tests im running is that on a physical BOX to the PS100 im getting FAR better results from a NIC than the 4052, although the HBA is using less CPU

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TABLE OF RESULTS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SERVER TYPE: VM ON ESX 3.0.1
CPU TYPE / NUMBER: VCPU / 1
HOST TYPE: Dell PE2950, 8GB RAM; 2x XEON 5355(Quad), 2,66 GHz,
STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: EQL PS100e x 1 / 14+2 SATA / R50
SAN TYPE / HBAs : iSCSI, QLA4052 HBA Flow Control

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

Max Throughput-100%Read...............__16______..........___3569___.........___111____

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read......___37_____..........___1302___.........____10____

Max Throughput-50%Read................____9____..........___6386___.........___199____

Random-8k-70%Read.................____42____..........___1183___.........____9____

EXCEPTIONS: VCPU Util. 29-36-42-32 %;

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

I noticed that too..but after I destroyed all the LUNs and deleted the VM

I would like to retest, but this project had to move on!

There wasn't any other activity on the SAN at all either...

I wonder???

Dave