kblackwel
asked on
SAN Baseline performance
I've been attempting to get get some baseline performance numbers for my san. That is proving to be more difficult that I thought. I've been given some tools by netapp to capture the actual performance which give me diskpersec and diskbytesperser. It's also been suggested that I use iometer to get a baseline of the performance.
I've used both, and the numbers between the two programs arent exactly matching up.
So I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or could point me to some industry standard methodologoes for
1. Measuring Fibre SAN max performance to match up against the published maximum performance numbers.
It's a dell AX100. Tools for performing this test would be helpful too.
2. Measuring actual load on the san during production hours.
The tool I have from NetApp I think is theirs, I'd like to verify their numbers.
I'm interested in the tools to perform those test, but really need to know the methodologies and real world examples.
Thanks.
I've used both, and the numbers between the two programs arent exactly matching up.
So I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or could point me to some industry standard methodologoes for
1. Measuring Fibre SAN max performance to match up against the published maximum performance numbers.
It's a dell AX100. Tools for performing this test would be helpful too.
2. Measuring actual load on the san during production hours.
The tool I have from NetApp I think is theirs, I'd like to verify their numbers.
I'm interested in the tools to perform those test, but really need to know the methodologies and real world examples.
Thanks.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Just to correct the above, RAID 10 for more read performance; not RAID 5. It's better for both read and write but it does cost more space.
In comparision to raid5, raid10 is better in write performance. Please correct me if wrong?
Riad 10 and Raid 5 are almost have same performance on read(10:9). I prefered raid5 as it is low cost when compared to raid10.
Raid10 have twice write performnce than raid 5.
The above values are good, if you consider same disk numbers.
Raid10 have twice write performnce than raid 5.
The above values are good, if you consider same disk numbers.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
1)What application you use Ex:exchange
2)check for IO size that your apps uses; ex:Mostly 4k size for exchange
3)MAX IO threshhold for the apps in peak times ; xxxIOPS , is this below required
4)Is the IO random or sequential.; Mostly random
5)What is the read/write ratio; ex 4:1
6)then, from above matrix choose the raid level best suited for your apps; EX:mostly need raid 5 for data disks , and raid10 for logs.
Raid5 for more read performance; Raid10 for better write performance; raid6 if more redendency required than performance.