Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
3 Posts
0
496
August 2nd, 2006 04:00
NetWorker disc backup speed and EMC AX models
I'm trying different storage boxes to find the fastest and cheapest.
This is my results until now:
IBM DS4300 Raid 5 85,1 Mb/sek
HP EVA Raid 5 62,5 Mb/sek
HP MSA1500 Raid 1 39,2 Mb/sek
HP MSA1500 Raid 5 17,9 Mb/sek
EMC AX100 Raid 5 11,5 Mb/sek
As you probably notice the EMC AX 100 is the slowest.
By posting this i'm hoping to be flamed with a lot of people that have an AX 100 or even an AX 150 running much faster.
I'm using NetWorker 7.2.2 and 7.3.1 with a combination of bigasm/cloning and a LTO2 to get fastest transfer
Have a nice day
Henrik
This is my results until now:
IBM DS4300 Raid 5 85,1 Mb/sek
HP EVA Raid 5 62,5 Mb/sek
HP MSA1500 Raid 1 39,2 Mb/sek
HP MSA1500 Raid 5 17,9 Mb/sek
EMC AX100 Raid 5 11,5 Mb/sek
As you probably notice the EMC AX 100 is the slowest.
By posting this i'm hoping to be flamed with a lot of people that have an AX 100 or even an AX 150 running much faster.
I'm using NetWorker 7.2.2 and 7.3.1 with a combination of bigasm/cloning and a LTO2 to get fastest transfer
Have a nice day
Henrik
No Events found!
ble1
6 Operator
•
14.4K Posts
•
56.2K Points
0
August 2nd, 2006 12:00
With all that on mind one has to ask following questions: was the "internal" configuration same (volume groups, controllers, etc)., did you use same volume manager, are they using same disk technologies, etc. But I agree, people having AX100 would probably be the best source of feedback.
I would also recommend to use something else other than bigasm - there are few tools written in asm or C that create either random or zeros data and write to target you specify - since your source is memory they are great tools to test target for their performance.
hgrevelund1
3 Posts
0
August 3rd, 2006 00:00
I didn't really wan't to write all the specific details about the test until some one asked.
I''m using Networker and bigasm, because NetWorker is my game, and i wan'ted to find what was best for doing disc backup.
I do know that there are other programs where one can play with blocksizes and all, but they don't show a number that can be used for this purpose.
Bigasm does create random data, a LTO2 drive can compress it with 1:1.5 factor.
Which pretty much matches normal files.
There are a big difference in the disk layout/type of discs and price on the systems. Some are SATA and some are SCSI. Until now the SCSI is the fastes.
Have a nice day
Henrik
ble1
6 Operator
•
14.4K Posts
•
56.2K Points
0
August 3rd, 2006 10:00
I have seen recently both EMC and STK/Sun disks performing almost the same - it all comes down to controller and how internal configuration is done. ATA/SATA is cheaper and of course performance is not that good as SCSI/FC. You will see some really bad data one you run multiple read and writes against the disk. You will wish to explore your lower point to know what is the maximum load on disk that matches minimum to drive LTO-2 (disk and LTO3 is busy environment is big no unless you wish to spend fortune to make it stream under disk load).
It's hard to compare performance when you have different layouts. If you are looking to get it cheap, take into account technologies like the one provided by DataDomain too. This seems to be a hit lately.