[insert the 'what is an op' argument]

Apps don't talk disk ops
NFS doesn't equate to disk ops
...
...




Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 13, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Jordan Slingerland <Jordan.Slingerland@independenthealth.com> wrote:

> Over simplified
>
> 120*200  = 24,000 maximum sustained ops (minus parity disks)
>
> Or
>
> 80*140 = 11,200 maximum sustained ops (minus parity disks)
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: toasters@teaparty.net
> Subject: Expected performance difference between two configurations
>
> Hi all;
>
> Am trying to understand what sort of performance difference I might see between two different configurations:
>
> 1) IBM N6240 E21 (FAS3240C) w/ 120x600GB 15K 3.5" SAS and 512GB of
>   flash cache
> 2) IBM N6250 E26 w/ 80x900GB 10K 2.5" SAS and 512GB of flash cache.
>
> Sorry, on the latter I don't know the equivalent FAS.  Probably FAS3250C?
>
> We have fewer spindles, but newer, beefier controllers.
>
> Our workload is primarily VMware via NFS.  Lotsa random reads and writes (more on the read side) with I'd say the bulk of the IO requests in the 64KB+ range.
>
> Will I regret going with fewer spindles?
>
> Ray
> _______________________________________________
> Toasters mailing list
> Toasters@teaparty.net
> http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toasters mailing list
> Toasters@teaparty.net
> http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters