--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito@gridapp.com
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Net Backer
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 5:19 PM
To: toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: Re: blade servers to Filer

Matt,

    If you could add a FC I/O card in the blade then why can't you add a TOE card instead? doesn't the blade server have free PCI I/O slots??

-G

----- Original Message -----

From: Matthew Zito

To: toasters@mathworks.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:01 PM

Subject: RE: blade servers to Filer

Definitely - iSCSI is the way of the future, and in the next few years even traditional SANs will start to be supplanted by iSCSI networks.  The only downside is that for high-performance iSCSI throughput you need TOE cards on both sides - the host and the storage.  With blade servers there's no option for custom ethernet cards, so unless your manufacturer provides them on the blade, you're out of luck.  I seem to recall IBM discussing with us that there were plans for TOE cards for the blades but the timeframes were hazy and distant. 

 

Today, if you need high-performance block i/o for the blades, your best bet is really to pony up the extra cash for the fibre I/o adapters for the blades and the fibre switches and deploy a SAN.

 

Thanks,

Matt

--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito@gridapp.com
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Net Backer
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:46 PM
To: toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: Re: blade servers to Filer

Have you looked at iSCSI? It is very simple to install and attach an Intel or Adaptec TOE card to the NetApp filer. We are currently evaluating 2 Win2K servers, one running SQL and the other Oracle using iSCSI. The performance is as good as if not better than the local drives. These are not huge databases though, but for small workgroup use, but need large storage, ~500GB (combination of database and image files) and we didn't want the users to buy  Dell disk arrays.

I would rather use iSCSI instead of VLD, because I think that's the direction even NetApp is moving to.

-G

----- Original Message -----

From: Nicko Demeter

To: Matthew Zito ; 'Hunter Wylie' ; 'Bui, Marcus' ; toasters@mathworks.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:33 PM

Subject: RE: blade servers to Filer

Right, that's exactly what we are working with right now. Actually some of the IBM blades can be beefy enough to serve as SQL servers within a cluster. The problem I am having is that the VLD drivers do not offer enough speed as advertised. NetApp wants some data from me that I just haven't had enough time to collect but I was also wondering if anyone else out there is using the combo of a filer/blade servers.

 

Before you ask, we need the VLD because SQL will not put the data on the UNC (\\server\path) drive. The VLD makes a remote filer volume look like a local drive, thus fooling the SQL server on working.

 

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

Nicko

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Matthew Zito
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Hunter Wylie'; 'Bui, Marcus'; toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: RE: blade servers to Filer

 

It's worth noting that the IBM bladecenter can do fibre channel on the blade with the fibre switches embedded in the chassis.  Very nice solution, actually.

 

Matt

 

--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito@gridapp.com
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Hunter Wylie
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:48 AM
To: 'Bui, Marcus'; toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: RE: blade servers to Filer

Marcus,

Blade servers generally can and should be purchased with 2 disks for mirrored OS, SWAP and some binaries.  Given that the smallest disk you can get now exceeds your DAS requirement by 8X plus I’d say they all get local DAS.  This would allow you a single set of spares, cookie cutter software installation, etc…  Also, I don’t think a typical Win2000 system can easily boot without a disk

 

I’m not aware of any blade servers having single or dual fibre channel out of the back of each blade so DAS on the filer is out of the question.   The HP Proliant BL 10e has Gbit out of the back with a Gbit consolidation switch built in to cut way down on the cable mess.

 

With regard to your data storage – everything should go onto the filer(s) for all the obvious reasons.  Even the sources for the images that will go on the local DAS.  You don’t want to manage N file and OS spaces on N blades.  One place to back up, no blade server is different from the rest, the world scales easily….  Free time to do something interesting.

 

Good luck,

 

 

Hunter M. Wylie

21193 French Prairie Rd

Suite 100

St. Paul, Oregon 97137-9722

Bus: 866-367-8900

FAX: 503-633-8901

Cell: 503-880-1947

 

http://www.itmls.com/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Bui, Marcus
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:11 AM
To: 'toasters@mathworks.com'
Subject: blade servers to Filer

 

Hi Toasters,

 

We are migrating many of the current servers to HP blade servers.  The Server Team is considering connecting to the Filers/SAN on the back end for storage.  I know this is not a problem.  Some of the applications servers only need 4GB of space so leaving it on the DAS will be better.  Want to best utilize the Filers since not every blade server is a good candidate for NAS if DAS will suffice.  What are some criteria to use when considering connecting blade servers to the Filers?  Any suggestion is appreciated.

 

cheers,

Marcus Bui