toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Brosseau, Paul 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Good point Glenn on the number of disks. Once the number of IOPS on a loops generates enough throughput to saturate the loop there's not much point in adding more disks. Spreading the load across multiple loops helps. How does the adage go " go wide then go shallow then go deep ". Eventually you saturate something somewhere depending on the filer model . Paulb -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:57 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks - it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity calculations. A better question\way to position this might be what type of workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max you'd want to go). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Blake Golliher 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Glenn is very much correct here. The application will dictate what your upper limit will be. A highly sequential Oracle workload will different greatly from a 5000 user exchange cluster. That curve in raid groups is around 20 disks in my experience. Eventually you'll run out of head room for the number of disks you've attached. -Blake On 10/4/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks > it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much > above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. > > However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and > the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity > calculations. > > A better question\way to position this might be what type of > workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of > about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin > to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower > latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange > is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max > you'd want to go). > > Glenn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS > > Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. > > Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a > linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no > penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? > > That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty > for RAID4 or RAID-DP? > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM > To: Suresh Rajagopalan > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS > > How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you > can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is > also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per > raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure > reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp > overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks > (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 > spindles > and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. > > Hope that helps, > -Blake > > > On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS > for > > the following cases: > > > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know > that > > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's > implementation > > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > > > Any assistance would help. > > > > Thanks > > Suresh > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c
by Glenn Walker 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Yup... Pretty capable machine for 500 users or so. Depends on workload, as Blake said, it's OPS\CPU limited. 940 is a beast by comparison - probably about 2-2.5 times as fast. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:44 PM To: John Stoffel Cc: Grey Friday; Glenn Walker; Brian Pascal; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c I'd say an F840 (I think that's what Glenn was suggesting). The 270 is an op limited machine. Dual core 650Mhz processor, and a gig of ram (subtract 256 for NVMEM) and you get a pretty limited box in terms of performance. A 940 has a 1.8 ghz proc 4 or so gigs of memory, and a dedicated nvram card. Much better performance box. But a 270 wasn't marketed as a very fast box, but a very small, cheap box for small & remote offices. -Blake On 10/4/06, John Stoffel <john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Grey" == Grey Friday <grey.friday(a)gmail.com> writes: > > Grey> http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2004q2/sfs97r1-20040525-00186.htm l > Grey> On 10/3/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Grey> Brian, > >> > >> Those numbers are deemed NetApp Internal Only - though I believe that > >> Sales can share some info with you. > >> > >> However this might help: a FAS270c is equivalent to a NetApp F840 > >> system with respect to throughputhorsepower. Maybe just a tad faster > >> even. > > Glenn, > > Just to be sure, you're talking about an F840 is roughtly equivilent > to an FAS270, right? Not an F940? > > John > PM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Suresh Rajagopalan 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c
by Glenn Walker 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Brian, Those numbers are deemed NetApp Internal Only - though I believe that Sales can share some info with you. However this might help: a FAS270c is equivalent to a NetApp F840 system with respect to throughput\horsepower. Maybe just a tad faster even. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brian Pascal Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:37 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c Does any one has an idea of what is the maximum throughput of a FAS270c system? (Sustained system bandwidth & IOPS) Thanks, Brian. This Mail Has Been Scanned For Virus By Scanmail For Lotus Notes Enterprise/Kbsl

5 5

Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Suresh Rajagopalan 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for the following cases: 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation of RAID4 or RAID-DP. Any assistance would help. Thanks Suresh

3 2

Maximum throughput of a FAS270c
by Brian Pascal 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

Does any one has an idea of what is the maximum throughput of a FAS270c system? (Sustained system bandwidth & IOPS) Thanks, Brian. This Mail Has Been Scanned For Virus By Scanmail For Lotus Notes Enterprise/Kbsl

1 0

RE: Response time measurement
by Willeke, Jochen 29 Sep '06

29 Sep '06

Hi, its me again thinking about measurement of response time. I have a new idea and just wanted to hear from you what you think about it. I am running a dd with a bs of 8k/4k against a fileserver for a couple of minutes and during different daytimes. While the dd is running i do capture the networkstream and create a statistic for NFSv3-ops tetherreal -i eth0 -z rpc,100003,3 This gives me an overview of the RTT's during this run of dd. What do you think about this method? I can use sio as well for generating random IO but the method will remain the same. Best Regards and thanks in advance for any opinions on that Jochen ________________________________ From: Miller, James [mailto:James.Miller@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:27 PM To: Willeke, Jochen Subject: Re: Response time measurement Isn't it 8.72ms or .00872secs ... Jim Miller sent from blackberry -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com> To: NetApp Toasters List <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Sep 22 08:13:05 2006 Subject: Response time measurement Hi folks, i am still thinking about some figures which help me considering different fileservers. After doing some research i think one point is the response time given by the system. I did a lot of testing with sio and but the results i got are some kind of strange. A test with SIO e.g. brings following result: ./sio_ntap_linux 100 0 8k 100m 10 1 /mnt/test15 Version: 3.00 SIO_NTAP: Inputs Read %: 100 Random %: 0 Block Size: 8192 File Size: 104857600 Secs: 10 Threads: 1 File(s): /mnt/test15 Outputs IOPS: 114578 KB/s: 916626 IOs: 1145782 Terminating threads ...Killed First there are the KB/S. Much to fast even for a 1Gbit network. And the second is the response time. I calculated the following: 1s / 114578 (IOPS) = 0,00872 ms (response time) This cannot be true at all :-) Does SIO read the same block all the time (due to 0%random read), or do i have any kind of mistake in my test?!? Perhaps someone can help. Best Regards and a nice weekend Jochen

3 4

RE: Can we use clearcase with FAS6xxx Ontap 7.2?
by Glenn Walker 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

SW, if 7.1.x is supported with Clearcase, then I'm sure 7.2 is as well. It just hasn't been officially 'tested'. That said, while 7.2 has some major feature enhancements, ONTAP still functions pretty much the same with respect to client connectivity for all protocols. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of G SW Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Can we use clearcase with FAS6xxx Ontap 7.2? Halo.. We are using FAS960 with Clearcase, thinking of upgrading to FAS6xxx series, but get to know that 7.2 is the only version supported on FAS6xxx series, but currently Clearcase supported version is on 7.1.x latest. Appreciate feedback on FAS6xxx with clearcase.. BR SW

1 0

Can we use clearcase with FAS6xxx Ontap 7.2?
by G SW 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Halo.. We are using FAS960 with Clearcase, thinking of upgrading to FAS6xxx series, but get to know that 7.2 is the only version supported on FAS6xxx series, but currently Clearcase supported version is on 7.1.x latest. Appreciate feedback on FAS6xxx with clearcase.. BR SW

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters