Re: New !! Open unofficial storage performance th... - Page 27

christianZ · ‎03-05-2009

Hello everybody,

the old thread seems to be sooooo looooong - therefore I decided (after a discussion with our moderator oreeh - thanks Oliver -) to start a new thread here.

Oliver will make a few links between the old and the new one and then he will close the old thread.

Thanks for joining in.

Reg

Christian

mikeyb79 · ‎08-29-2013

Here's the results with bytes 8800 policy set, no significant difference.

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

TABLE OF RESULTS

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

SERVER TYPE: Windows 2008 R2, 1 vCPU, 4GB RAM, 40GB hard disk

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: Intel E5-2660, single vCPU

HOST TYPE: Dell PowerEdge R720, 256GB RAM; 2x E5-2660, 2.2 GHz

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Compellent SC8000, 11 data disks in Tier 1 (RAID10), 600GB 15k (bytes policy set to 8800)

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

TEST NAME--

Resp. Time ms Avg IO/sec MB/sec

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

Max Throughput-100%Read........____10.93___..........____5550.65__.........____173.46____

RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read......_____11.25_.........._____4067.83__.........____31.78____

Max Throughput-50%Read.........._____12.29___.........._____2927.64__.........____91.49____

Random-8k-70%Read................._____10.66__.........._____4347.17__.........____33.96___

dam09fr · ‎09-04-2013

My little contribution :

SERVER TYPE: Windows 2008 R2, 2 vCPU, 4GB RAM, 60GB hard disk

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: Intel X6550, 2 CPU

HOST TYPE: Dell PowerEdge R710, 64GB RAM, 2x E5-2660 (2.66 GHz), 4x1GB/s ISCSI ports

ISCSI LAN: 2x PowerConnect 6224 (MTU 9000)

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: EqualLogic PS6100X Firmware 6.0.5 (4x1GB/s ISCSI ports) - 22 SAS 10K 600GB - RAID10 + 2 spares - NO MEM

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	4.55	11910	372	1%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	9.31	4938	38	4%
Max Throughput-50%Read	5.84	9430	294	0%
Random-8k-70%Read	9.11	5036	39	4%

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Synology DS1813+ DSM 4.3 (3x1GB/s ISCSI ports) - 6 SATA 10K 500GB (WD Velociraptor) - RAID5

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	9.83	5994	187	1%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	54.91	911	7	0%
Max Throughput-50%Read	12.91	4377	136	1%
Random-8k-70%Read	63.12	783	6	0%

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Synology DS1813+ DSM 4.3 (3x1GB/s ISCSI ports) - 2 SSD Crucial M4 256GB - RAID1 (block LUN)

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	9.43	6246	195	0%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	17.53	3255	25	1%
Max Throughput-50%Read	10.97	5100	159	0%
Random-8k-70%Read	20.43	2760	21	0%

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Synology DS1813+ DSM 4.3 (3x1GB/s ISCSI ports) - 2 SSD Crucial M4 256GB - RAID0 (block LUN)

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	9.71	6066	189	2%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	10.88	5215	40	0%
Max Throughput-50%Read	9.52	6040	188	2%
Random-8k-70%Read	11.77	4794	37	0%

mac1978 · ‎10-06-2013

Just migrated from an Equallogic PS4000 to a NetApp FAS2240. These numbers seem low and the latency seems quite high. Any thoughts on these numbers?

ESXi 5.1 u1a. 4 physical NICs setup in 1to1 vmkernal ports and all vmk ports are bound to the VMware Software iSCSI initiator. Round robin is being used. MTU of 9000 set on all.

SERVER TYPE:Windows 7 64bit 1vCPU 4GB ram

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: quad-core AMD opteron 2389

HOST TYPE: HP DL385 G5p VMware ESXi 5.1u1a 1065491

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Netapp FAS2240-2 12x900GB 10K SAS. 1 Spare - 2 Parity RAID DP (Raid 6)

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	16.23	3149	98	3%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	12.68	3827	29	3%
Max Throughput-50%Read	17.61	2616	81	2%
Random-8k-70%Read	13.27	3728	29	3%

pinkerton · ‎10-06-2013

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich bin erst am 04.11.2013 wieder erreichbar. Bitte wenden Sie sich in dieser Zeit an support@mdm.de.

Freundliche Grüße

Michael Groß

mikeyb79 · ‎10-07-2013

It's not hopeless by any means, but it appears as though what you did is you took the 24 drives and split them between the controllers. This will have an impact on your performance.

I also have a FAS2240 (the -4 model) in my test lab with 24 1TB NL-SAS drives at 7k. You can see my read numbers are higher as I read from slightly more spindles. The more write-intensive benchmarks are higher on yours with slightly lower latency due to the faster drives but you would have been able to stretch them out more with a larger aggregate.

My layout has:

Controller 1 with 3 drives RAID-DP for vol0 and 1 hot spare;
Controller 2 with 3 drives RAID-DP for vol0 and 1 hot spare;
1 aggregate of 16 disks (with a RAID size of 16) owned by controller 1.

This means that I essentially have an active/passive configuration, controller 2 serves no data. Controller 1 benefits from a larger data aggregate, and both controllers have a same-sized hot spare available so no matter which controller owns the data aggregate, I always have a spare for rebuilds. Disks get added in groups of 16, either to the existing aggregate on controller 1 (depending on CPU utilization, cache hit %, and disk utilization), or you can start again on controller 2 if the first controller is heavily utilized.

NetApp FAS2240-4
Access Specification Name	IOps	MBps (Binary)	Avg Response Time
Max Throughput-100%Read	3,506.35	109.57	17.17
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	2,862.38	22.36	17.27
Max Throughput-50%Read	6,393.61	199.80	9.18
Random-8k-70%Read	2,651.04	20.71	17.92

Taking a look at your random and real-life numbers on an 11-disk RAID-DP RAID set you are getting at worst roughly 330 IOPS/spindle. Spread across 16 disks that would probably be closer to 5,200 IOPS on those benchmarks.

As for the latency, I would focus more on the numbers coming out of OnCommand System Manager based on your actual workload to ensure they are reasonable rather than what you are seeing on a synthetic benchmark.You will find the caching algorithms are quite good in ONTAP but most benchmarks try to remove cache as much as possible.

mac1978 · ‎10-07-2013

Thank for the info you Mikey. Had the debate as to whether or not I should split the drives between both controllers; ended up splitting for better or worse.

I guess my main concern was that the numbers are not drastically better than our 6 year old equallogic. Although now that I look again the numbers are substantially better. These are the numbers from it:

SERVER TYPE:Windows 7 64bit 1vCPU 4GB ram

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: quad-core AMD opteron 2389

HOST TYPE: HP DL385 G5p VMware ESXi 5.1u1a 1065491

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL:

Equallogic PS5000 14x7200 SATA Raid 5 w/1 spare

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	22.83	2582	80	3%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	27.40	1693	13	2%
Max Throughput-50%Read	20.94	2793	87	4%
Random-8k-70%Read	26.12	1756	13	2%

Netapp:

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	16.23	3149	98	3%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	12.68	3827	29	3%
Max Throughput-50%Read	17.61	2616	81	2%
Random-8k-70%Read	13.27	3728	29	3%

What is throwing me off though it the first test I ran on the Netapp using iometer (I ran 3 total for each SAN) I ended up with this result:

Notice the Max 100% read latency and avg MBps

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	2.65	11439	357	8%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	10.27	4577	35	3%
Max Throughput-50%Read	20.66	2394	74	2%
Random-8k-70%Read	13.36	3725	29	3%

mikeyb79 · ‎10-08-2013

Yes, that's odd but I normally run the benchmarks a few times over for consistency, so I would disregard any anomalous results if the later iterations are reasonably consistent.

I think the real take-away based on your results is the huge improvement in the RealLife and Random tests, that's greater than 2x gains in both IOPS and MBps, as well as about half the latency. That should make for a much improved user experience.

francescoghini · ‎10-19-2013

Does anyone have an opinion on my test results?

SERVER TYPE: Windows 2008 R4 64bit 1vCPU 4GB ram

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: Intel Xeon E5530 Processor

HOST TYPE: PowerEdge R710 / RAM 147443,0 MB - Qlogic QLE2460

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Supermicro Server / 16HD RAID10 / 2 HotSpare / 7.200K

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	5.22	10785	337	46%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	37.14	1595	12	16%
Max Throughput-50%Read	3.35	15232	476	60%
Random-8k-70%Read	42.28	1349	10	18%

Thanks

mikeyb79 · ‎10-19-2013

If that's for 14 drives in RAID10 plus two hot spares then I'd say the results are pretty predictable/normal for 7k drives.

What software is being used to serve up the storage?

Sent from my iPhone

francescoghini · ‎10-19-2013

as software i'm using open-e, about the disk im using SEAGATE 2TB SAS ST2000NM0001 Enterprise Capacity 3.5 HDD and as controller a Dell Perc H700 512/mb Ram

francescoghini · ‎10-28-2013

Hello, i had done some tweaks to the san os.....

SERVER TYPE: Windows 2008 R4 64bit 1vCPU 4GB ram

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: Intel Xeon E5530 Processor

HOST TYPE: PowerEdge R710 / RAM 147443,0 MB - Qlogic QLE2460

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: Supermicro Server / 16HD RAID10 / 2 HotSpare / 7.200K

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	5.31	10683	333	37%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	2.31	18767	146	68%
Max Throughput-50%Read	3.45	16613	519	64%
Random-8k-70%Read	2.45	14163	110	74%

Does anyone have an opinion on my new test results?

Thanks

fbonez · ‎10-28-2013

You need to decrease the amount of RAM dedicated to the VM.

4 GB is too hight. Is the same size of the test file used by IO Meter.

The risk is that all the IO operation use RAM as cache.

Try with 1,5 GB.

Francesco

-- If you find this information useful, please award points for "correct" or "helpful". | @fbonez | www.thevirtualway.it

francescoghini · ‎10-30-2013

Hello, i had done some tests using some SAN OS so after a few days here is it the results, in all 3 tests i used same storage, same test machine...... i would like to have an opinion..... Thanks

meistermn · ‎11-11-2013

Are there any Cyrstal Disk Mark Benchmark for the SC3700 SSD, special for 4K Single Q

Intel SSD DC S3700 Series Enterprise SSD Review | StorageReview.com - Storage Reviews

Are ASS Benchmark

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Software/VMWare/Q_28176530.html

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/Low-4K-scores-AHCI-is-enabled-and-alignment-also-...

https://forums.openfiler.com/index.php?/topic/3343-terrible-crystal-disk-mark-4k-randomconfig-proble...

http://www.effizienzgurus.de/review/speichermedien/datentraeger/corsair-nova-v128-ssd-128gb-cssd-v12...

pinkerton · ‎11-11-2013

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich bin erst am 14.11.2013 wieder erreichbar. Bitte wenden Sie sich in dieser Zeit an support@mdm.de.

Freundliche Grüße

Michael Groß

Joris85 · ‎11-20-2013

Hello,

I did the test with this setup:

Dell Equallogic PS 4100 (2x ISCSI 1Gb ports)

24x 600GB 10K

RAID10 + 2 Spare

1 Volume 2TB

Stacked Cisco 3750X with Dell Recommended Scripts (MTU9000...)

VMware ESX 5.5

Dell PowerEdge R720 with 4x ISCSI 1Gb Ports

Dell MEM v1.2 PlugIn (DELL_EQL Path)

All done by the Dell Equallogic Compatibility Matrix and the Dell recommandations.

I installed 1 Windows Server 2008R2 station with 2vCPU's and 2GB RAM. No other VM's.

These are the results.

Are these normal/good figures?

It is hard for me to evaluate this and to know this is what is expected or not.

2GB RAM, 2vCPU
Access Specification Name	Idle	Max Throughput-100%Read	RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	Max Throughput-50%Read	Random-8k-70%Read
# Managers
# Workers	0	1	1	1	1
# Disks	0	1	1	1	1
IOps	0	2561,809353	4070,736853	3391,763911	4128,44941
Read IOps	0	2561,809353	2644,604667	1695,436977	2892,239794
Write IOps	0	0	1426,132186	1696,326935	1236,209616
MBps (Binary)	0	80,056542	31,802632	105,992622	32,253511
Read MBps (Binary)	0	80,056542	20,660974	52,982406	22,595623
Write MBps (Binary)	0	0	11,141658	53,010217	9,657888
MBps (Decimal)	0	83,945369	33,347476	111,14132	33,820258
Read MBps (Decimal)	0	83,945369	21,664601	55,556079	23,693228
Write MBps (Decimal)	0	0	11,682875	55,585241	10,127029
Transactions per Second	0	2561,809353	4070,736853	3391,763911	4128,44941
Connections per Second	0	5,123485	8,139727	6,783015	8,256219
Average Response Time	0	17,11121	13,739377	13,792968	13,422029
Average Read Response Time	0	17,11121	14,234527	13,670445	13,710765
Average Write Response Time	0	0	12,821176	13,915426	12,746501
Average Transaction Time	0	17,11121	13,739377	13,792968	13,422029
Average Connection Time	0	195,169291	122,823364	147,41385	121,105571
Maximum Response Time	0	197,719612	395,593434	162,881386	378,444327
Maximum Read Response Time	0	197,719612	395,593434	162,881386	378,444327
Maximum Write Response Time	0	0	151,936908	115,824916	138,24697
Maximum Transaction Time	0	197,719612	395,593434	162,881386	378,444327
Maximum Connection Time	0	261,058808	836,18337	229,627369	858,949322
Errors	0	0	0	0	0
Read Errors	0	0	0	0	0
Write Errors	0	0	0	0	0
Bytes Read	0	25182863360	6499598336	16667607040	7108354048
Bytes Written	0	0	3504979968	16676356096	3038273536
Read I/Os	0	768520	793408	508655	867719
Write I/Os	0	0	427854	508922	370883
Connections	0	1537	2442	2035	2477
Transactions per Connection	-1	500	500	500	500
Total Raw Read Response Time	0	1,88288E+11	1,61706E+11	99562042107	1,70345E+11
Total Raw Write Response Time	0	0	78543683585	1,01399E+11	67688631231
Total Raw Transaction Time	0	1,88288E+11	2,4025E+11	2,00961E+11	2,38033E+11
Total Raw Connection Time	0	4295098914	4294518380	4295270512	4295146146
Maximum Raw Read Response Time	0	2830985	5664178	2332165	5418634
Maximum Raw Write Response Time	0	0	2175460	1658402	1979445
Maximum Raw Transaction Time	0	2830985	5664178	2332165	5418634
Maximum Raw Connection Time	0	3737887	11972624	3287846	12298591
Total Raw Run Time	0	4295326535	4295598014	4295655898	4295686982
Starting Sector	1,84467E+19	0	0	0	0
Maximum Size	1,84467E+19	8000000	8000000	8000000	8000000
Queue Depth	-1	64	64	64	64
% CPU Utilization	0,999542	29,201032	17,352905	27,637179	18,222367
% User Time	0,58006	11,778161	5,236457	10,571545	5,519789
% Privileged Time	0,429193	17,425438	12,118731	17,066311	12,703574
% DPC Time	0,046821	1,422219	1,331214	1,760191	1,476797
% Interrupt Time	0,04422	0,780011	0,691607	0,792996	0,857998
Processor Speed	14318180	14318180	14318180	14318180	14318180
Interrupts per Second	191,478093	1519,581044	1247,858847	1492,13929	1330,195429
CPU Effectiveness	0	87,730098	234,585325	122,724679	226,559452
Packets/Second	29,439698	29,736883	29,680131	29,252993	29,536417
Packet Errors	0	0	0	0	0
Segments Retransmitted/Second	0	0	0	0	0

pinkerton · ‎11-20-2013

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich bin erst am 22.11.2013 wieder erreichbar. Bitte wenden Sie sich in dieser Zeit an support@mdm.de.

Freundliche Grüße

Michael Groß

_VR_ · ‎01-14-2014

SERVER TYPE: Windows 2008 R2, 16 vCPU, 4GB RAM, 40GB hard disk

CPU TYPE / NUMBER: Intel E5-2690, 2 CPU

HOST TYPE: HP DL380P Gen8, 256GB RAM, 2x10GB Broadcom BCM57810

ISCSI LAN: Cisco Nexus 3064T (MTU 9000)

STORAGE TYPE / DISK NUMBER / RAID LEVEL: EqualLogic PS6110XS Firmware 6.0.6 (1x10GB/s ISCSI port) - 7x 400GB SSDs + 17x 600GB 10K HDDs - RAID6 (accelerated), 1 spare - NO MEM

Test name	Latency	Avg iops	Avg MBps	cpu load
Max Throughput-100%Read	2.10	26365	824	7%
RealLife-60%Rand-65%Read	5.81	9749	76	4%
Max Throughput-50%Read	5.16	11275	352	5%
Random-8k-70%Read	5.60	10175	79	4%

Max Throughput-50% Read numbers seem a bit low, otherwise the results look decent

RomanB1005 · ‎01-27-2014

Hello

I would like to ask you

Regarding tests , can I run some domain controllers (file server) , mail server and maybe some snmp and vpn server for around 50 users ?

Is that iops performance enough ?

Thanks in advance

SDYBELGIUM · ‎02-26-2014

Hi guys,

We have 4 HP DL 380p Gen 8 servers 2 in each DC conected thru 10GB Fibre between DC

Then we have 8 HP Storevirtual HP StoreVirtual 4330 iSCSI also 4 in each DC conected with 10 GB Fibre between DC

The core switches are HP Procurve 3800

we have ESXI 5.1

We did a test with IOmeter on a new VM cause we have latency problems.

can anyone help verify if the below results are good or not ?

we compared it to other installs and it seemed slow

anone has a P4000 ??

Kind Regards,

All

New !! Open unofficial storage performance thread