Hi all,
I've a startup project that will expect a very simple Hyper-V 2012 iSCSI cluster. Competitor is an EqualLogic appliance 24x300 10k SAS HDs.
There's a very interesting promo in these days offering a 2220 12x900 SAS at very competitive price vs a 2240-2 24x450 SAS so I was evaluating the 2220.
But I'm concerned about performances. The two server nodes will be "only" 32 GB RAM/2 CPU Xeon 8C so I can presume that the number of VM servers will be no more that 7-8 I've lab data from NetApp that state, at lab conditions, that for short random ops with iSCSI the 2220 can do roughy 10k IOPS vs the 30k of the 2240-2, for short write they are quite similar (40k IOPS). For large ops the 2240-2's performances are very higher that 2220. In addition to this I've also considered that the 2220 will have ONLY 6 mechanics for each controller while the 2240 will have 12 each...
What do you think about this little cluster? Can I trust in 2220? Regards
Hi,
I could be wrong but from my recollection the 2220 would have 15K disks while the 2240-2 would only be 10K. The last price list I saw you could buy a 2220HA Complete Bundle with 12 x 600 plus a DS4243 with 12x600 for less than a 2240-2HA with 24x450... and you would have 24 15K disks instead of 24 10K.
If you have the power, cooling and rack space I would personally go with the 2220 plus DS4243 so long as you don't expect the system to grow significantly (and don't need FC or 10GbE options).
Kind regards Steve
From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: 23 October 2012 15:16 To: toasters@teaparty.net Subject: 2220 or 2240? Performance issues?
Hi all,
I've a startup project that will expect a very simple Hyper-V 2012 iSCSI cluster. Competitor is an EqualLogic appliance 24x300 10k SAS HDs.
There's a very interesting promo in these days offering a 2220 12x900 SAS at very competitive price vs a 2240-2 24x450 SAS so I was evaluating the 2220.
But I'm concerned about performances. The two server nodes will be "only" 32 GB RAM/2 CPU Xeon 8C so I can presume that the number of VM servers will be no more that 7-8 I've lab data from NetApp that state, at lab conditions, that for short random ops with iSCSI the 2220 can do roughy 10k IOPS vs the 30k of the 2240-2, for short write they are quite similar (40k IOPS). For large ops the 2240-2's performances are very higher that 2220. In addition to this I've also considered that the 2220 will have ONLY 6 mechanics for each controller while the 2240 will have 12 each...
What do you think about this little cluster? Can I trust in 2220? Regards
________________________________ DISCLAIMER: The information contained within this electronic mail is confidential and may be legally privileged and it is intended for the addressees only. If you have received this message in error and you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any review of the contents, dissemination or distribution of such, copying or other use of this communication or the information within is strictly prohibited. For further information or should you wish to discuss this with us, please email legal@iconsultci.com.
Just a reminder: Don't just count the drives. Imagine the setup. If you configure the controllers symmetrically they should both have a spare and RAID-DP, leaving you with just _3 data spindles_ per controller if you go for the 12-disk offer. If you configure asymmetrically you'll get something like:
* 1+1 (RAID 4 root vol) * 1 Spare, _7 Data_ + 2 Parity
So 7 Data spindles, but only one active controller (the other one being idle most of the time, I presume). 7*~250 IOPS = 1.700 IOPS at the spindles... (The controller shouldn't be the bottleneck...)
I still have an uneasy feeling here...
In conclusion: If you can't afford the 24-disk offer, consider at least an asymmetric configuration!
Sebastian
On 23.10.2012 16:16, Milazzo Giacomo wrote:
Hi all,
I've a startup project that will expect a very simple Hyper-V 2012 iSCSI cluster. Competitor is an EqualLogic appliance 24x300 10k SAS HDs.
There's a very interesting promo in these days offering a 2220 12x900 SAS at very competitive price vs a 2240-2 24x450 SAS so I was evaluating the 2220.
But I'm concerned about performances. The two server nodes will be "only" 32 GB RAM/2 CPU Xeon 8C so I can presume that the number of VM servers will be no more that 7-8
I've lab data from NetApp that state, at lab conditions, that for short random ops with iSCSI the 2220 can do roughy 10k IOPS vs the 30k of the 2240-2, for short write they are quite similar (40k IOPS).
For large ops the 2240-2's performances are very higher that 2220.
In addition to this I've also considered that the 2220 will have ONLY 6 mechanics for each controller while the 2240 will have 12 each...
What do you think about this little cluster? Can I trust in 2220?
Regards
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
That's ok (I had considered it) but this can causes other "political" issues. Anyway I was reading about Hyper-V 2012 and SMB transport. I know that is SO new (and we know which king of nightmares the Microsoft novelties bring) but somewhere NetApp states 10 time faster...vs what? What do you think about?
Regards
Da: Sebastian Goetze [mailto:spgoetze@gmail.com] Inviato: martedì 23 ottobre 2012 16:46 A: Milazzo Giacomo Cc: toasters@teaparty.net Oggetto: Re: 2220 or 2240? Performance issues?
Just a reminder: Don't just count the drives. Imagine the setup. If you configure the controllers symmetrically they should both have a spare and RAID-DP, leaving you with just 3 data spindles per controller if you go for the 12-disk offer. If you configure asymmetrically you'll get something like:
* 1+1 (RAID 4 root vol) * 1 Spare, 7 Data + 2 Parity
So 7 Data spindles, but only one active controller (the other one being idle most of the time, I presume). 7*~250 IOPS = 1.700 IOPS at the spindles... (The controller shouldn't be the bottleneck...)
I still have an uneasy feeling here...
In conclusion: If you can't afford the 24-disk offer, consider at least an asymmetric configuration!
Sebastian
On 23.10.2012 16:16, Milazzo Giacomo wrote: Hi all,
I've a startup project that will expect a very simple Hyper-V 2012 iSCSI cluster. Competitor is an EqualLogic appliance 24x300 10k SAS HDs.
There's a very interesting promo in these days offering a 2220 12x900 SAS at very competitive price vs a 2240-2 24x450 SAS so I was evaluating the 2220.
But I'm concerned about performances. The two server nodes will be "only" 32 GB RAM/2 CPU Xeon 8C so I can presume that the number of VM servers will be no more that 7-8 I've lab data from NetApp that state, at lab conditions, that for short random ops with iSCSI the 2220 can do roughy 10k IOPS vs the 30k of the 2240-2, for short write they are quite similar (40k IOPS). For large ops the 2240-2's performances are very higher that 2220. In addition to this I've also considered that the 2220 will have ONLY 6 mechanics for each controller while the 2240 will have 12 each...
What do you think about this little cluster? Can I trust in 2220? Regards
_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net
A student in one of my courses is/was testing Server 2012 over SMB 3.0. He also applied for the ONTAP 8.2 Beta (which has SMB 3.0) support. He also mentioned, that it's way faster, probably compared to Hyper-V on Server 2008R2 over iSCSI...
On the original topic: I just checked the ExpressPod announcement. In the small version it contains a 2220, and it's supposedly designed for up to 50VMs. Details coming up at the end of the month...
So it might well work for the small number of VMs you're expecting.
Regards
On 23.10.2012 17:17, Milazzo Giacomo wrote:
That's ok (I had considered it) but this can causes other "political" issues.
Anyway I was reading about Hyper-V 2012 and SMB transport. I know that is SO new (and we know which king of nightmares the Microsoft novelties bring) but somewhere NetApp states 10 time faster...vs what?
What do you think about?
Regards
*Da:*Sebastian Goetze [mailto:spgoetze@gmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 23 ottobre 2012 16:46 *A:* Milazzo Giacomo *Cc:* toasters@teaparty.net *Oggetto:* Re: 2220 or 2240? Performance issues?
Just a reminder: Don't just count the drives. Imagine the setup. If you configure the controllers symmetrically they should both have a spare and RAID-DP, leaving you with just _3 data spindles_ per controller if you go for the 12-disk offer. If you configure asymmetrically you'll get something like:
- 1+1 (RAID 4 root vol)
- 1 Spare, _7 Data_ + 2 Parity
So 7 Data spindles, but only one active controller (the other one being idle most of the time, I presume). 7*~250 IOPS = 1.700 IOPS at the spindles... (The controller shouldn't be the bottleneck...)
I still have an uneasy feeling here...
In conclusion: If you can't afford the 24-disk offer, consider at least an asymmetric configuration!
Sebastian
On 23.10.2012 16:16, Milazzo Giacomo wrote:
Hi all, I've a startup project that will expect a very simple Hyper-V 2012 iSCSI cluster. Competitor is an EqualLogic appliance 24x300 10k SAS HDs. There's a very interesting promo in these days offering a 2220 12x900 SAS at very competitive price vs a 2240-2 24x450 SAS so I was evaluating the 2220. But I'm concerned about performances. The two server nodes will be "only" 32 GB RAM/2 CPU Xeon 8C so I can presume that the number of VM servers will be no more that 7-8 I've lab data from NetApp that state, at lab conditions, that for short random ops with iSCSI the 2220 can do roughy 10k IOPS vs the 30k of the 2240-2, for short write they are quite similar (40k IOPS). For large ops the 2240-2's performances are very higher that 2220. In addition to this I've also considered that the 2220 will have ONLY 6 mechanics for each controller while the 2240 will have 12 each... What do you think about this little cluster? Can I trust in 2220? Regards _______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net <mailto:Toasters@teaparty.net> http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
These are very interesting answers. Thank you very much,
Regards,
Da: Sebastian Goetze [mailto:spgoetze@gmail.com] Inviato: martedì 23 ottobre 2012 18:53 A: Milazzo Giacomo Cc: toasters@teaparty.net Oggetto: Re: 2220 or 2240? Performance issues?
A student in one of my courses is/was testing Server 2012 over SMB 3.0. He also applied for the ONTAP 8.2 Beta (which has SMB 3.0) support. He also mentioned, that it's way faster, probably compared to Hyper-V on Server 2008R2 over iSCSI...
On the original topic: I just checked the ExpressPod announcement. In the small version it contains a 2220, and it's supposedly designed for up to 50VMs. Details coming up at the end of the month...
So it might well work for the small number of VMs you're expecting.
Regards
On 23.10.2012 17:17, Milazzo Giacomo wrote: That's ok (I had considered it) but this can causes other "political" issues. Anyway I was reading about Hyper-V 2012 and SMB transport. I know that is SO new (and we know which king of nightmares the Microsoft novelties bring) but somewhere NetApp states 10 time faster...vs what? What do you think about?
Regards
Da: Sebastian Goetze [mailto:spgoetze@gmail.com] Inviato: martedì 23 ottobre 2012 16:46 A: Milazzo Giacomo Cc: toasters@teaparty.netmailto:toasters@teaparty.net Oggetto: Re: 2220 or 2240? Performance issues?
Just a reminder: Don't just count the drives. Imagine the setup. If you configure the controllers symmetrically they should both have a spare and RAID-DP, leaving you with just 3 data spindles per controller if you go for the 12-disk offer. If you configure asymmetrically you'll get something like:
* 1+1 (RAID 4 root vol) * 1 Spare, 7 Data + 2 Parity
So 7 Data spindles, but only one active controller (the other one being idle most of the time, I presume). 7*~250 IOPS = 1.700 IOPS at the spindles... (The controller shouldn't be the bottleneck...)
I still have an uneasy feeling here...
In conclusion: If you can't afford the 24-disk offer, consider at least an asymmetric configuration!
Sebastian
On 23.10.2012 16:16, Milazzo Giacomo wrote: Hi all,
I've a startup project that will expect a very simple Hyper-V 2012 iSCSI cluster. Competitor is an EqualLogic appliance 24x300 10k SAS HDs.
There's a very interesting promo in these days offering a 2220 12x900 SAS at very competitive price vs a 2240-2 24x450 SAS so I was evaluating the 2220.
But I'm concerned about performances. The two server nodes will be "only" 32 GB RAM/2 CPU Xeon 8C so I can presume that the number of VM servers will be no more that 7-8 I've lab data from NetApp that state, at lab conditions, that for short random ops with iSCSI the 2220 can do roughy 10k IOPS vs the 30k of the 2240-2, for short write they are quite similar (40k IOPS). For large ops the 2240-2's performances are very higher that 2220. In addition to this I've also considered that the 2220 will have ONLY 6 mechanics for each controller while the 2240 will have 12 each...
What do you think about this little cluster? Can I trust in 2220? Regards
_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net
-
Milazzo Giacomo -
Sebastian Goetze -
Stephen Stocke