+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
Hardware Thread, Sun Storage 7110 Performance in Technical; Are you using NFSv3 or NFSv4?...
  1. #31
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,185
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Are you using NFSv3 or NFSv4?

  2. #32
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,014
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 172 Times in 158 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    Are you using NFSv3 or NFSv4?
    I'm pretty sure it was NFSv3, which is what ESX appeared to default to. Not sure if there's an option to tell ESX4 to use NFSv4, or if it even supports it?

    Cheers,
    Chris

  3. #33

    Ric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,582
    Thank Post
    107
    Thanked 761 Times in 592 Posts
    Rep Power
    179
    I used NFS v3... I didn't see an option for v4 so I didn't tell it to use it - I know it's v3 from the pretty graphs

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Sun 7110 NFS iSCSI VMware ESX vSphere Performance Stats

    Hi Everyone,

    Since you shared with me and it helped me out, I thought I would share back.

    Our environment is VMware vSphere (ESX 4) with HP GB switches to a single Sun 7110. The servers are Sun X4150's with 32 GB RAM and 2.83 GHz Xeon CPU's. I have vlanned off the storage onto private network, but I have not teamed anything for this test. All tests were done with a single NIC from the servers and a single NIC on the 7110. The version of firmware on the 7110 was 2010.02.09.0.0,1-1.9

    For IOMeter, I used the same icf file listed at the front of this thread. I tested from within a Windows 2003 VM and I didn't format the partition in Windows 2003. There were no other VM's accessing the Sun 7110 at the time of the tests.

    Also...some information about how the Sun 7110 is setup for the tests:

    For NFS - Data Dedupe is off, Data Compression is off, Synchronous Write Bias is set to Throughput and Database Record size is 128K

    For iSCSI - Data Dedupe is off, Data Compression is off, Synchronous Write Bias is set to Throughput, Block sizes set to 64K and turned Write Cache on.

    Obviously if you turn things like Data Dedupe on...it is gonna slow things down a bit.

    I thought a comparison of NFS and iSCSI would be good, plus a comparison of Double Parity Raid to RAID 10 (mirrored). You know that mirrored should be faster, but how much faster...will it be worth it to you? This may help you decide.

    So....for Double Parity Raid-

    NFS:

    Total I/O's per Second: 323.13
    Total MB's per Second: 3.44
    Average I/O Response Time: 3.0941
    Maximum I/O Response Time: 330.4260
    % CPU Utilization: 1.18

    iSCSI:

    Total I/O's per Second: 2648.69
    Total MB's per Second: 28.61
    Average I/O Response Time: 0.377
    Maximum I/O Response Time: 475.4195
    % CPU Utilization: 5.51



    Mirrored (RAID10)-

    NFS:

    Total I/O's per Second: 557.49
    Total MB's per Second: 5.77
    Average I/O Response Time: 1.7932
    Maximum I/O Response Time: 513.4279
    % CPU Utilization: 1.58

    iSCSI:

    Total I/O's per Second: 2211.62
    Total MB's per Second: 24.31
    Average I/O Response Time: 0.4516
    Maximum I/O Response Time: 1719.4337
    % CPU Utilization: 4.68


    Obviously the write cache is having a significant effect. So...I did one last test with iSCSI with the Write Cache disabled. Also..interestingly, the RAID10 iSCSI performance was not higher with Write Cache enabled. Notice that the response time with iSCSI with Write Cache enabled is much faster than NFS. The other problem I have with the Write Cache is I am not convinced that the above numbers would be accomplished during "real world" usage - especially after the cache is full.

    Here are the results of iSCSI with Write Cache disabled.

    iSCSI RAID10 - Write Cache Disabled

    Total I/O's per Second: 638.14
    Total MB's per Second: 6.82
    Average I/O Response Time: 1.5665
    Maximum I/O Response Time: 215.4945
    % CPU Utilization: 2.04


    iSCSI Double Parity Raid - Write Cache Disabled

    Total I/O's per Second: 120.50
    Total MB's per Second: 1.29
    Average I/O Response Time: 8.2981
    Maximum I/O Response Time: 1001.3984
    % CPU Utilization: 1.03

    So...without the cache....RAID10 is still faster, but Double Parity Raid looks bad with iSCSI compared to NFS.

    So...who is the winner would depend on what you need - if you need space and go with RAID6 (Double Parity Raid), then NFS is the winner. If you want the best performance and can sacrifice space...then iSCSI with RAID10 is better.

    Jim
    Last edited by nickelj; 15th March 2010 at 05:15 AM.

  5. 2 Thanks to nickelj:

    Duke (15th March 2010), j17sparky (15th March 2010)

  6. #35
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,014
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 172 Times in 158 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Looks good, thanks for doing a variety of tests and RAID types!

  7. #36


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,387
    Thank Post
    183
    Thanked 350 Times in 279 Posts
    Rep Power
    147
    How come nickeljs iSCSI performance is so high? I was under the impression NFS was better on the SUN boxes.
    Any ideas?

    //Or is it that iSCSI has better max IO when benchmarking, but NFS is better in real life with multiple concurrent connections?
    Last edited by j17sparky; 15th March 2010 at 11:26 AM.

  8. #37
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,014
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 172 Times in 158 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Must admit I was a bit surprised by that too, I know Sun improved iSCSI a lot with the COMSTAR stack, but I thought NFS was still better for VMware.

    These were my Q2.5 figures over 100Mb network:

    Q2.5

    NFS
    IOPS: 596.42
    MBPS: 6.34
    Avg Response: 1.6761
    Max Response: 255.5736
    CPU Util: 7.02

    iSCSI
    IOPS: 254.76
    MBPS: 2.53
    Avg Response: 3.9247
    Max Response: 4177.26
    CPU Util: 3.19

    Never got around to comparing iSCSI after I'd upgraded to Q3.

    Chris

  9. #38
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,185
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    I'm still on the old iSCSI stack at the moment and it's adequate, i've been told by Sun that it's a big improvement in the new update.

  10. #39
    Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,579
    Thank Post
    211
    Thanked 220 Times in 176 Posts
    Rep Power
    62
    Hmm I think I'm gonna have to reconfigure my 7110's to Raid 10 and investigate iscsi write cache! Those new numbers look really good!

    Butuz

  11. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Just in case this wasn't clear...this was using 1 gigabit NICs.

    In my experience...iSCSI usually does outperform NFS in "real world" situations with other devices.

    The Comstar code in the new iSCSI for the Sun 7000 series of storage units makes a big difference.

    However, as indicated - NFS is better if you are going to go with RAID6 - double parity raid.

    I wouldn't trust the Write Cache enabled numbers for iSCSI - the cache will fill up pretty fast and is not big enough on a 7110 (it is only 3-4 GB) to sustain the throughput. I did some testing under load and the results were very "all-over-the-place" with iSCSI and Double Parity Raid.

    Much more consistent with NFS and Double Parity Raid.

    However, the RAID10 (mirroring) with iSCSI was really good - the minimum figures would be the ones I posted above without Write Cache Enabled and they would only get better with it enabled.

    The units that have the SSD's (everything except the 7110 I think) should not suffer the same performance hit with Double Parity Raid and iSCSI.

    When I moved from iSCSI and Double Parity Raid this weekend to a Mirrored (RAID10) with iSCSI, the performance difference was huge - users noticed right away and my ATTO benchmarks from within the VM's hit over a 100 mbps and were consistently good.

    I would highly recommend upgrading to the version I listed in my post.

    Oh and by the way...it now has a Dedupe checkbox!

    Jim

  12. 3 Thanks to nickelj:

    Duke (16th March 2010), j17sparky (16th March 2010), SLMHC (28th April 2010)

  13. #41

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    34
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    I just upgraded to 2010.02.09.0.2,1-1.13 tonight from the 2009.09.01.4.1,1-1.13 and am seeing all the nice new features. Since I have this box in production I imagine that I would have to back up all the existing VMs, wipe the double parity raid config and reconfig using RAID 10 to get the huge speed increases iSCSI gives us with the new stack?

    EDIT: Wooohooo! AD join finally worked with this build! Sorry aboot that, going back to being a reserved Canadian now...
    Last edited by SLMHC; 28th April 2010 at 03:36 AM. Reason: Rocking 2010 Q1 Update!

  14. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Yes...unfortunately there is no way to change raid types without wiping the data.

    But based on my experience...it is well worth it. Even if you do leave it at Double Parity Raid, the unit performs much better than it previously did, so just upgrading is worth it.

    Jim

  15. #43


    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the server room, with the lead pipe.
    Posts
    4,534
    Thank Post
    271
    Thanked 752 Times in 590 Posts
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by SLMHC View Post
    I just upgraded to 2010.02.09.0.2,1-1.13 tonight from the 2009.09.01.4.1,1-1.13 and am seeing all the nice new features. Since I have this box in production I imagine that I would have to back up all the existing VMs, wipe the double parity raid config and reconfig using RAID 10 to get the huge speed increases iSCSI gives us with the new stack?

    EDIT: Wooohooo! AD join finally worked with this build! Sorry aboot that, going back to being a reserved Canadian now...
    *suspects SLMHC may be a merkin in disguise*

    (loads of US backpackers - IME - pretend to be Canadian, because no-one can remember if Canadians have done anything retarded)

  16. #44
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,014
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 172 Times in 158 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by pete View Post
    *suspects SLMHC may be a merkin in disguise*

    (loads of US backpackers - IME - pretend to be Canadian, because no-one can remember if Canadians have done anything retarded)
    Naw, he said aboot, that's all the convincing I needed...

  17. #45

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    34
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    I figured I'd loose everything if I wiped and recreated the RAID level. Better to ask a stupid question than to do something stupid.

    I have heard many a story of Americans slapping a Canadian flag on their backpacks as they travel Europe, and yes I am a born and bread Canuck. Oh and we really don't say aboot, but I can admit to letting out an eh or two.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sun Storage 7110
    By Ric_ in forum Hardware
    Replies: 663
    Last Post: 17th August 2012, 07:34 AM
  2. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 3rd June 2010, 11:43 AM
  3. iSCSI / SUN 7110 Virtual Simulator problem
    By ArchersIT in forum Hardware
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16th June 2009, 04:10 PM
  4. Xenserver 5 and SUN 7110 SAN
    By cookie_monster in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 1st June 2009, 06:06 PM
  5. Sun 7110, CIFS share for MSI's
    By cookie_monster in forum Hardware
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14th May 2009, 11:33 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •