AX150 vs DS3400

[roundorange]

Hi all,

I'm looking at the possibility of using an "entry-level" FC based SAN to kick start my ESX project and shortlisted down to the AX150 or the DS3400.

AX150 = 12 x 500GB SATA 7.2k RPM, 4 x FC2 ports (on two storage processors)

DS3400 = 12 x 300GB SAS 10k RPM, 4 x FC4 ports (on two storage processors)

As the AX150 uses SATA disks, I'm thinking of running it in RAID10 to boost performance, whereas for the DS3400, I'm thinking of running it in RAID5.

Effectively both solutions give me ~3TB of RAIDed capacity but the cost of the DS3400 came up to be slightly lower than an AX150 and the DS3400 can be "expanded" in future by connecting another disk chassis (EXP300) whereas the AX150 is fixed.

Does anyone have experience/inputs/suggestions on which path would give better performance as well as dollar for value?

BTW, I notice the AX150 series has been out for quite a while, any chance a newer model will be out soon?

TIA!

[christianZ]

IMO DS3400 would outperform the AX150 and you can expand it with additional disks shelves (that isn't possible with AX150).

You will run especially by random ios better with sas drives.

Just my 2 cents.

[admin]

I'd avoid the AX150, I've heard nothing but bad things about it.

[AMcCreath]

LMAO, doubt it.....

The AX150i is a solid little performer with a great price point and excellent support, unlike the Generic HP, and the impossible to resolve IBM.

It's also the only box that fully exploits all the SATA II capabilities.

[admin]

Fair enough. I'm only going on reports I've read on here so that may well be true, I've not actually used the box myself so I accept what you're saying.

I've not had a problem with IBM kit or support though, used the DS4300 and it's been very good.

[christianZ]

..and you will choke with 12 sata disk.

I would avoid it too, when my budget allows it.

[OleksiyBykov]

Please, take into account that AX150 is only one array that allow direct attachment to ESX Server (without FC switches). This will be very lower your budget for small ESX deployments.

Also, for AX150 750GB disks available now.

You can connect to one server up to four AX150s (about scalability).

Message was edited by:

OleksiyBykov

[roundorange]

Hi AMcCreath, thanks for the info. Are you using the AX150i in production? May I know how many disks? Are full SATA II capabilities matching in terms of IOPs/performance with SAS disks?

[roundorange]

Hi OleksiyBykov, thanks for the insight. Are you currently using AX150 in production? May I know how many disks? Does the AX150/150i have any "hidden" costs like additional licensings required to support more servers, etc? I read the DS3400 docs and it seems to have a slew of "software upgrades" available.

[roundorange]

Hi christianZ, thanks for sharing. Could you elaborate further why the 12 sata disks would choke? I was thinking along the line that more disks = more spindles plus using RAID10 on the 12 sata(II) disks would drive performance up?

[roundorange]

Hi Mittell, I'm looking at the DS3400 and not the DS4300. The DS3400 is one of IBM's latest offerings for "entry-level" SAN.

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/storage/disk/ds3000/ds3400/

[roundorange]

Hi christianZ, on the topic of random ios, would it suffice for me to run the DS3400 with (for example) 6 SAS disks in RAID5 instead of 12 SAS disks in RAID5? My original intention to have 12 disks is based on the assumption that more spindles == better performance, and not so much on the issue of capacity. I could run 6 SAS disks and leave the remaining 6 slots for future expansion.

[christianZ]

Check this thread for ios results:

http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=73745

The big difference between sata and sas or fc is the "response time" - even with many satas you can't quite compensate it, especially by random ios.

The one competitor that makes this a bit better is EQL but even there you can see a large difference between sata and sas models.

The satas are good choice for 3 tier storage or when you need large capacity but not many ios.

Virtualization shares resources ( the disks also) so that many vms will be using the disks simultaneously - the "response time" is then the crucial factor.

Just my opinion.

In addition -

>would it suffice for me to run the DS3400 with (for >example) 6 SAS disks in RAID5 instead of 12 SAS disks in >RAID5?

That depends on how many disks your physical servers have for now and how much load they are running;

when you have e.g. one server with 6 scsi disks already and they seem to be heavy loaded then you can't get storage with only 6 disks for all your servers.

Maybe possible to get e.g. 10(8) x 146 GB disks (6 are a bit few for me - but I don't now what you will virtualize).

Message was edited by:

christianZ

Please don't forget to award points for helpful or correct answers. Thanks.

[OleksiyBykov]

I work as Consultant and some my clients use AX150 (not AX150i) for production, especially SMB or small branches of large companies.

For example, one small bank use AX150 as Disaster Recovery site array (9 disks: 8 disks RAID10 and one disk is Hot Spare), small insurance company use AX150 for two instances of SQL Server and their Microsoft infrastructure services (12 disks, one Hot Spare and mix of RAID5 and RAID10), large distribution company use AX150s for their regional branches (AD, Exchange, small SQL Server, Linux/Firebird; 4 250GB disks RAID10 and one disk as Hot Spare). As usually large clients tend to use AX150s for backup capacity (RAID5), non-critical file servers and non-production purposes (development, testing).

Please, as suitable configuration and implementation guide to help achieve the best performance and reliability from the AX150 use "Best Practices for the AX150" (http://www.emc.com/techlib/abstract.jsp?id=1751&c=US&l=en)

P.S. for AX150 there are no hidden costs (all needed management, snapshot and multi-path software incl.). Only if you need manage multiple AX150s (up to 99) from one central console of Navisphere Manager (you will have one CLARiiON CX on central site, of course) you will buy Navisphere Express upgrade for each managed AX150.

Message was edited by:

OleksiyBykov

Message was edited by:

OleksiyBykov

[christianZ]

Maybe you can explain more details about your virtualizations plans -

how many servers will attend,

what kind of servers, etc.

This way it can be possible to check your requirments.

Have you already checked the prices for AX150 and DS4300 - I suppose the DS4300 should be a bit more expensive and maybe doesn't fit your budget.

[roundorange]

Hi OleksiyBykov, christianZ

Thanks for the inputs. I've done some additional research and reading around as well.

The machines I'm trying to virtualise are mainly "general purpose" windows and linux boxes. i.e Windows DC, File (DFS replicated store), SharePoint (and maybe Exchange for around 100-200 users), Lotus Domino, Linux DNS/SMTP/WEB/MySQL/FTP/etc.

For the Windows VMs, they are more of an off-site "DR/backup" and users will normally not be accessing the Windows dc/file services directly. There will be a replicated server located locally on site.

In total I would have around 20 - 30 odd VMs running across 2 x Blade servers (each with QuadCore processors).

Would the AX150 or DS3400 suffice for this purpose?

TIA!

[roundorange]

Hi christianZ, I'm looking at the DS3400 and not the DS4300. The DS3400 is one of IBM's latest offerings for "entry-level" SAN.

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/storage/disk/ds3000/ds3400/

Do you think the SAS disks on this box would beat the SATA on the AX150 hands down? The DS3400 can scale by adding additional enclosures which can support SAS or SATA disks.

I heard/read that the DS3400 is actually OEMed from LSI. Any idea if this is good or bad?

TIA!

[roundorange]

Hi OleksiyBykov,

I've read the "Best Practices for the AX150" article and it mentioned about using two storage groups instead of one. But I thought having separate storage groups would reduce the number of spindles which in turn might have a performance impact?

I haven't quite figured out why two storage groups are better than one. Or would it be possible to run meta luns across two or more AX storage groups?

TIA!

[christianZ]

Hi christianZ, I'm looking at the DS3400 and not the

DS4300. The DS3400 is one of IBM's latest offerings

for "entry-level" SAN.

My typo

Do you think the SAS disks on this box would beat the

SATA on the AX150 hands down? The DS3400 can scale by

adding additional enclosures which can support SAS or

SATA disks.

I would say the sas disks will outperform satas - definitely.

I heard/read that the DS3400 is actually OEMed from

LSI. Any idea if this is good or bad?

All the ds4xxx and ds3xxx models comes from Engenio.

Engenio is one from the "older" storage vendors - SUN, SGI, IBM,... sells them as oem.