Michel Roth
3 Argentium

RE: IOPS requirements

Yes, I think I read that paper before. It is a very good one. Windows 7, after boot actually can do better from a IO perspective than Windows XP does. If you can deal with the windows 7 read I/O storm at bootup, Windows 7 would actually perform better. Watch ProjectVRC the next couple of days for more cool information on this.

0 Kudos
ssloan1
1 Copper

RE: IOPS requirements

Hello Robb!  IOPs are most def. an issue.  I think when you go to extreme measures to physically consolidate VDI/TS environments, you also have to do this with storage.  At the end of the day, it's all about how fast can you get that data.  In order to scale to extreme numbers, you likely have to look at SSD/NAND type storage architecture.  We've looked at PCIe options and SAN attached NAND options.  Both give extreme (100,000+ IOPS) numbers that allow this kind of scale.  Here is the link I was referring to.  Again, it's not the gospel...it's just a white paper. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Data_Center/App_Networking/vdiucswp.html

Sorry for the delay...I removed the notifications for this topic.

0 Kudos
ssloan1
1 Copper

RE: IOPS requirements

Local storage is compelling with the proper design and strategy, but that's a religious topic.  My question is why one would spend all that money for a dozen spindles when the same cash can purchase 100 times the IO capability with SSD/NAND technology.  Smaller footprint, less heat, less energy, etc etc..

What are your thoughts Robb 

0 Kudos
ssloan1
1 Copper

RE: IOPS requirements

Wouldn't the memory requirement be higher though?

0 Kudos
dbolton
3 Argentium

RE: IOPS requirements

Smaller storage capacity though - for the money.

0 Kudos
ssloan1
1 Copper

RE: IOPS requirements

I don't know that I completely agree.  "It depends"  If you have to purchase enough spindles to gain 100,000 IOPs... what does that cost you?  We obviously aren't talking about small projects.  Where talking about spanning multiple racks of fiber spindles in comparison..  That adds up.

0 Kudos
ssloan1
1 Copper

RE: IOPS requirements

Likely 175-225 depending on who you ask.  185 is the number I've always used for "calculations".

0 Kudos
Michel Roth
3 Argentium

RE: IOPS requirements

Yes, very much so. One could argue that there could be perceived to be a sweetspot for a economical server that has the memory and the IOPS to host that many Windows7 desktops. WindowsXP would hit the IOPS bottleneck earlier or at the same time with a lot of RAM left.

0 Kudos
dbolton
3 Argentium

RE: IOPS requirements

I knew I forgot to do something....

"theoretical IOPS capacity is for the IBM 146GB 15K 6Gbps SAS 2.5" SFF Slim-HS HDD"

Is 160 - 180 per drive.

0 Kudos
Michel Roth
3 Argentium

RE: IOPS requirements

Thanks. It goes to show that the 200 IOPS number that sometimes is used an an average for a 15K SAS drive can be dangerous.

Would you consider this a high-end drive?

0 Kudos