SCI 2010 May 27 latest SPC benchmark results analysis

May 272010

We return now to that classic block storage benchmark, Storage Performance Council (SPC) results*. We mostly discuss SPC-1 latest results below with a short discourse on an interesting SPC-1C result.

SPC-1*results

There have been five new SPC-1 results this past quarter – two Huwaei Symantec Oceanspace subsystems the S2600 and the S5600, two from Fujitsu the ETERNUS DX400 and DX8400 and the latest IBM 8700 (R5.1) with SSDs, SATA drives and Easy Tier automation. It’s unclear whether IBM’s Easy Tier had sufficient runtime to effect performance optimization for any SPC-1 runs (see discussion below). Nevertherless, none of these subsystems made it into the top 10 in IOPS™. However, three of them did make it into the best LRT™ results discussed below.

(SCISPC10527-001) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

The new IBM DS8700 and the two Fujitsu systems showed up well in as #6, 8 & 9 in top 10 LRT results. Recall that LRT measures the average response time during the 10% load factor run and as such, should correspond to the best response time from a relatively idle subsystem. We have discussed the other Top 10 LRT subsystems in prior dispatches and do not cover them here#.

(SCISPC10527-002) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Both Huawei Symantec subsystems showed up well in most of the $ based comparison and here one can see the $/IOPS metric where they came in at #6 & 8. One caution here is that Huawei subsystem pricing was given in CNY which we converted into USD for comparison purposes at CNY ~6.8 to the $. Nonetheless, they compare well in price performance as SPC now calls it.

In addition, it has been brought to my attention that the SPC-1/E benchmark runs are equivalent to the SPC-1 runs. As such, we have added Xiotech’s recent SPC-1/E run for their Emprise 5000 with 146GB Huricane drives which now comes in at #7.

(SCISPC10527-003) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

In previous discussions we showed SPC-1 scatter plots for IOPS vs. Capacity and IOPS vs. $/GB. In this report we now return to IOPS vs. LRT. As one enhancement, we examined statistical trendlines (not shown) for this data but there does not appear to be any with a high correlation, so have left them out.

The two new Fujitsu systems, the DX440 and DX8400 show up well at the ~1.5msec line with ~100K and ~170K IOPS respectively and the medium cost subsystem at ~1msec LRT with ~33K IOPS is the new IBM DS8700 with Easy Tier, SSD and SATA disks.

(SCISPC10527-004) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

We have a new winner for this chart as the low-end Huawei Symantec S2600 subsystem managed to crack 350 IOPS™ per drive. Their higher-end subsystem was a respectable 258 IOPS™ per drive but didn’t break into this top ten. Unclear why the low-end Oceanspace did so well, it was just using 48-146GB 15Krpm SAS drives in a RAID 1 configuration.

However we have also updated this chart to include SPC-1/E data and now show the Xiotech’s 146GB and 600GB drive SPC-1/E runs come in at #2 and #5. Not bad for a 600GB disk drive.

You will recall that we have excluded pure SSD subsystems from this analysis as they tend to be off the chart, literally. Not sure whether Easy Tier should or should not be ok here but as it came in at the middle of the pack, we felt including was justifiable.

(SCISPC10527-005) (c) 2010 IBM, All Rights Reserved

As discussed above IBM was using SSD and SATA disks along with new automated storage tiering called Easy Tier. The effect of Easy Tier& is to move “hot” extent data from SATA disk to SSD. Hot is determined by subsystem activity monitoring over some time period.

One can see in this SPC-1 generated graph that I/O activity began ~15K IO/s and peaked out at ~50K IO/s before the SPC-1 driver dropped down to the requested workload (~33K IO/s). The requested workload amount is chosen at the discretion of the vendor running the test but from our perspective it looks like it could have sustained 50K IO/s for the rest of the 24hr run. The other thing of interest is the absolute lack of variability in the IO/s for the remainder of the run which probably says something about SPC-1’s working set size.

Other SPC results

(SCISPC10527-006) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Another new SPC submission was for its SPC-1C, which as you may recall is a component level benchmark. Oracle submitted a Sun F5100 Flash drive storage system which blew out all the other components by ~70X. Please note that this chart shows 100% IOPS load on a logarithmic scale and without this one could barely see the other results. The F5100 was SAS connected to a SPARC server running the benchmark. In fact with over 300K IOPS™ the Oracle component storage would easily have qualified in the top 3 IOPS results for the normal SPC-1 if only it supported FC attachment. Seems to be a “screamer” SAS-DAS storage.

Significance

There has been only one new SPC-2 submission this past quarter for the Fujitsu ETERNUS DX80 but it did not place in the top 10 in MBPS and so, we do not show any results for SPC-2. As for the other SPC benchmarks, there have been no results this past quarter.

It seems like SPC might need to come up with a “pure SAS-SSD” benchmark. I would think that there are other SAS-Flash storage vendors who might want to take on the Oracle F5100 juggernaut in a separate competition.

Also as automated storage tiering (like Easy Tier) goes mainstream it’s unclear how benchmarks should change to take advantage of these capabilities and how to better report on such capabilities. The vast majority of current SPC-1 submissions only use one drive type. Having multiple drive types and tiering automation certainly confounds any accurate performance comparisons.

As always if you have any suggestions on how we can improve our SPC or any performance analysis, please don’t hesitate to drop us a line. Our contact information can be found in the footer of this page.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in May of 2010. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this can be found at

2010 May 27 SCI's latest analysis of SPC results (PDF 1.2 MiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community.

* All results from www.storageperformance.org as of 27 May 2010

# See http://silvertonconsulting.com/cms1/dispatches/

& From http://www.storageperformance.org/benchmark_results_files/SPC-1/IBM/A00092_IBM_DS8700_EasyTier-SSDs/a00092_IBM_DS8700_EasyTier-SSDs_SPC1_full-disclosure.pdf

SCI 2010 Jan 28 last ESRP v2.1 (Exchange 2007) results analysis – 1K-to-5K mailboxes

Jan 282010

This dispatch covers Microsoft Exchange Solution Review Program (ESRP)[1] performance results for the over 1000 to 5000 mailboxes results category. Prior reports discussed the over 5000 mailboxes and 1000 and under 1000 mailboxes result categories[2].

ESRP was never intended to compare subsystem performance but rather as a proof of concept for Microsoft and storage vendors to depict a configuration supporting a given workload. Hence, any comparisons necessarily come with some caveats and may not be real. Nonetheless, SCI feels comparisons can well serve both the vendor and end-user storage community and thus, worth noting.

Latest ESRP V2.1 results

Our first chart is new to this analysis and shows aggregate database transfers per second per physical spindle. An astute reader requested we include performance per spindle. This metric doesn’t correlate well to any other ESRP performance parameter. Note, some of these subsystems use only 4 spindles (e.g., both AX4-5i) while #1 Netapp FAS2040 used 12 and #5 Dell MD1000 used 20.

(SCIESRP100128-001) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

The nice thing about transfers per spindle is the wide range of subsystems that perform well on it, e.g., 5 of these subsystems are iSCSI attached, 3 are SAS attached and the remainder are FC. In addition, the number of mailboxes supported spans almost the whole range from 1400 to 5000. We do not show the speed of the drives (15 or 10Krpm) or their interfaces. Nonetheless, if you want to attain the most from a set of spindles one would do well by going with either the FAS2040 or AX4-5i.

(SCIESRP100128-002) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Figure 2 shows the total number of database operations per second done by each subsystem. This is mostly correlated to the number of mailboxes but the HP MSA60 seems to do quite well for only having 2500 mailboxes. Even so the Dell and HP MSA70 dominate these top 10 results. HP MSA2000sa G2 and Fujitsu ETERNUS DX80 were the only new additions to this chart.

(SCIESRP100128-003) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Figure 3 is similar to Figure 2 except we have normalized subsystem database transfers/second performance by number of mailboxes (actual 1000 mailboxes). If it weren’t for the Dell MD1120, the top 5 would all be HP MSA storage. New entries to this chart are the HP MSA2000sa G2, Fujitsu ETERNUS DX80 and the EMC Celerra NS-480. As discussed in prior reports, normalized results may or may not scale up beyond their actual mailbox counts reported. For example, the subsystem results for 2KMbx may not hold up when pushed to support 5KMbx.

(SCIESRP100128-004) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Next, we show the Top 10 database backup throughput results. Both Dell’s MD1120 and MD1000 did well in this category. Once again the two new subsystems on this chart were the Fujitsu DX80 and the HP MSA2000sa G2. We like this chart because it’s a good surrogate for raw subsystem read throughput (although it’s database reads). For subsystems in this mid-range category to break 1GB/second seems very impressive.

(SCIESRP100128-005) (c) 2010 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Figure 5 Top 10 normalized log write/second

Finally, we show the aggregate log writes per second chart. This view of subsystem performance shows the write IOPs that each subsystem can perform. The new subsystems on this chart include HP MSA2000sa G2, NetApp FAS2040, Fujitsu ETERNUS DX80, and the EMC Celerra NS-480. We have a normalized view of this activity but it looks almost the same and does not show the top end nearly as well.

Conclusions

From our perspective, ESRP results in this mid range category seem to be getting more competitive. There were 6 new ESRP results in this category over the last 9 months, and at least 2 over the last quarter. In almost every chart one can see at least 2 and in most cases 3 or more new results showing up in the top 10.

We have always liked ESRP results because they show a real worldview of subsystem performance. Additionally, there seems to be much more willingness on the part of vendors to submit results to ESRP than some of the other, standard benchmarks. Also, iSCSI, FC and SAS attached storage results are available. Given all that, it’s a great way to compare subsystem performance.

ESRP/Jetstress results are inherently difficult to compare but are worth the effort in our view. Our next ESRP/Jetstress report will return to the 1K mailbox and under tier. We added a new database transfers per spindle chart based on feedback we received and continue to welcome any feedback on how to do better. As such, feel free to contact us with any ideas, our contact information can be found below.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in January of 2010. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this can be found at

SCI 2010 January 28 Analysis on recent ESRP results (PDF 773.6 KiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community.

[1] ESRP results from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/bb412164.aspx, as of 28 January 2010

[2] All prior SCI ESRP Dispatches can be found at http://silvertonconsulting.com/cms1/dispatches/

SCI 2009 Dec 31 Latest SPECsfs2008 results analysis

Dec 312009

We now turn to analysis of the latest SPECsfs® 2008* benchmark results. Fortunately there were a number of new NFS and CIFS benchmarks over the last quarter, including eight new NFS results in the top 10 and a couple of new CIFS results in the top 10.

Latest SPECsfs2008 NFS results

(SCISFS091230-001) 2009 (c) Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Huawei Semantec’s N8500 NAS storage system came in with a new number one result at over 176K NFS throughput operations per second. This was accomplished on Huawei server and storage hardware running Semantec’s FileStore Clustered NAS appliance software. Rounding out the rest of the top 3 were BlueArc’s new “midrange” Mercury 100 cluster, and HP BL860C. Both the HP and Huawei Semantec systems supported multi-node clusters, 12 nodes and 4 nodes respectively and both were running Semantec’s VxFS software. The BlueArc system has hardware acceleration and running on a two-node cluster.

Avere is a new NAS storage system and also supports a multi-node cluster. There were three Avere systems benchmarked in this last quarter with six nodes, two nodes, and one node. Their six-node system attained #4 of the top 10, running at over 130K NFS throughput operations with minimal disk drives (using only

79 drives). Most of the other systems in the top 10 had many more drives with the exception of NetApp FAS3160 with PAM acceleration that ran with 56 drives.

(SCISFS091230-002) 2009 (c) Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

For operational response time (ORT) results, we can see more of Avere systems in the top results attaining three out of the top four ORT results at 1.3, 1.33, and 1.38 msec. respectively. It’s interesting to see that the other top 10 NFS throughput results from Huawei Semantec and the NetApp systems also achieved top 10 ORT results as well.

Latest SPECsfs2008 CIFS results

(SCISFS091230-003) 2009 (c) Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

There were two new CIFS benchmarks from Fujitsu submitted this last quarter, one for their Primergy TX200 S5 and one for their Primergy BX920 S1. Both results managed to attain a position in a top 10 CIFS result, one in throughput and the other in ORT.

It doesn’t appear that the SPECsfs CIFS benchmark is gaining much mindshare. As of this dispatch there are only 11 total submissions. Nonetheless, the latest Fujitsu Primergy TX200 reached the top 10 (out of 11 – sigh). The dominant result remains with Apple’s Xserve running Snow Leopard running over 44K CIFS throughput operations per second.

(SCISFS091230-004) 2009 (c) Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

In the CIFS operational response time results, the new Fujitsu Primergy BX920 S1 attained #5 with a 2.9 msec. ORT. Once again an older Apple storage system holds the top ORT result at 1.2 msec.

Significance

Nice to see some activity at the top end in NFS results. The Huawei Semantec system has laid down the gauntlet with some pretty impressive numbers but we have yet to hear from some other vendors with enterprise class systems. NetApp, as always, was early to submit benchmark results for their current systems and their next generation Data ONTAP 7G will also support a clustered file system. Can’t wait to see how well that performs.

We are a bit disappointed in the paucity of CIFS results and yet continue to report them in the hope that more will be released. But as the benchmark has been out for over 18 months now it is not gaining many adherents. Also it would be wonderful to see more submissions for both benchmarks using the same hardware/software so that end-users could see what they are getting when they use CIFS or NFS.

This performance dispatch was originally sent out to our newsletter subscribers in December of 2009. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of NAS system features and performance please take the time to examine our NAS Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this can be found at

SCI 2009 December 31 Update to SPECsfs® 2008 performance results (PDF 578.6 KiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community

* SPECsfs2008 results from http://www.spec.org/sfs2008/results/

SCI 2009 Nov 19 latest SPC benchmark results analysis

Nov 192009

We once again return to the classic block storage benchmark, the latest Storage Performance Council (SPC) results*. Also we report on the new SPC-1/E energy usage benchmark for the first time.

SPC-1*results

There have been four new SPC-1 results this past quarter, IBM Power 595 with SSDs, TMS RamSan-620 with SSDs, Sun Storage 6180 and Fujitsu ETERNUS DX80 (rebadged 8000) storage subsystems. Both SSD subsystems made it into the top 10 on a number of charts. Let’s start with IOPS™.

(SCISPC091119-001) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

The top IOPS storage subsystem now stands as an IBM Power 595 server using SSDs and comes in at ~301K IOPS. TMS’s RamSan-620 at number 5, hit almost 255K IOPS. All the remaining, non-SSD, top-10 IOPS results save one (IBM SVC 3.1), had over 1000 drives. In contrast, the TMS RamSan-620 used only 20 SSDs. Not sure what the IBM Power 595 is doing in a storage subsystem benchmark but for SAS attached SSD storage, it’s a screamer.

(SCISPC091119-002) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Both the RamSan-620 and the IBM Power 595 tied for 3^rd at 0.5 msec LRT. All the rotating disk results range from 0.9 to 1.7 msec LRT. It’s almost inconceivable that the TMS RamSan 400 hit a 0.1 msec LRT and its counterpart, the TMS RamSan-320 hit only 0.2 msec but both have been reported before. What’s somewhat surprising is that the FC attached SSDs (TMS) and the SAS attached SSDs (IBM) perform equally well in LRT results, probably indicating that LRT performance does not always depend on drive interface.

(SCISPC091119-003) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Recall that in our last report we now restrict the IOPS/drive chart to only those subsystems using 140GB drives or larger. To that we now must add that results for SSDs are also excluded along with other memory subsystems. We would need a log scale to include the latest SSD results here, as the TMS RamSan-620 hit over 12.7K IOPS/Drive and the IBM Power 595 hit over 3.5K IOPS/Drive.

In contrast, both the Sun 6180 and Fujitsu’s DX80 made it into the top 10 for IOPS/drive at 326 and 300 IOPS/drive respectively. Also the Sun 6180 and IBM’s DS5020 Express perform exactly alike and seem to represent almost the same storage subsystem (OEMed probably from LSI, see also SPC-2 results below).

(SCISPC091119-004) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Readers will recall that this chart used to show a minimum LRT of 1.5 msec. With the addition of the TMS RamSan-620 we have had to rescale the chart below 1.5 msec. The other two additions to this chart were the Sun 6180 and the Fujitsu DX80, although they are difficult to discern in the crowd around 25K IOPs and 2.0 msec LRT. This chart always seems to tell us that subsystem price is not the lone factor in determining SPC-1 performance.

SPC-1/E

There have been no new SPC-1C or SPC-1C/E benchmarks this last quarter but a new benchmark has been released for subsystem wide energy use, the SPC-1/E. Xiotech has released results for their Emprise 5000 system with both 146GB/15Krpm and 600GB/10Krpm drives.

(SCISPC091119-005) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Xiotech used the same number of drives in each case (20), probably why the 600GB drive subsystem cost so much more (note bubble size). But more significant is that even with over 4 times the storage capacity the subsystem running the newer drives operates at ~26% less power. In all honesty the new 600GB drives operate slower, at 10Krpm than the 15Krpm 146GB drives. However, peak performance dropped only 14% from 6962 to 6057 IOPS and as such, seems a viable tradeoff.

SPC-2 results

There were eight new SPC-2 results submitted this last quarter, Sun 6180 and IBM DS5020 Express at RAID5 and RAID6 and Sun 6780 and IBM DS5300 with 8GFC at RAID5 and RAID6. Similar to the discussions above (see IOPS/drive), these two sets of subsystems perform exactly alike, i.e., the Sun 6180 equals the IBM DS5020 Express and the Sun 6780 equals the IBM DS5300 in performance, and so seem to be two of the same subsystems OEMed from the same vendor (probably LSI).

(SCISPC091119-006) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Actually the Top 11 are shown as the old (4GFC) Sun 6780/IBM 5300 results are tied for last place here. One can see the new (8GFC) Sun 6780/IBM DS5300 showing up at positions 5 through 7. We would have thought the 8GFC might make more of a difference with the SPC-2 throughput oriented testing but it only seemed to boost MBPS by ~17% (for RAID5). From our perspective, the sad part about this chart is that there really are only four subsystems represented here the HDS and it’s OEM, the two (LSI) OEMs, and the IBM SVC.

Significance

Power use continues to gain more interest. We again applaud SPC for providing yet another new energy benchmark. The other items of note from these results are that SSDs perform well whether FC or SAS attached and that a subsystem with only 20 SSDs (TMS RamSan-620) can easily break into the top 10 IOPS chart.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in November of 2009. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this is available at

SCI 2009 Nov 19 Update to SPC benchmark results (PDF 938.6 KiB)

As always we welcome any feedback on how to do this better. So, if you have any comments please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community.

* All results from www.storageperformance.org as of 27 August 2009

SCI 2008 Nov 18 Latest SPC-1 and SPC-2 results analysis

Nov 182008

We once again return to our quarterly SPC results and as such we report on the latest benchmark submissions below.

SPC-1*results

(SCISPC081118-001) (c) 2008 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

There have been only four new SPC-1 results these past three months. IBM released a new SVC 4.3 and a new DS5300 benchmark, 3PAR released an Inserv T800 and Fujitsu has released a new ETERNUS Model 200 benchmark. None of these results changed the LRT Top 10 chart which still stands from last May.

However, the new benchmarks did impact some of the other charts SCI maintains for SPC-1 data. For example when we look at my favorite metric, IOPS™ and these new results have changed the top 10.

The new IBM SVC 4.3 and 3PAR results have moved into the top 10 IOPS™. The SVC 4.3 has an 8 node configuration with 8 separate DS4700’s behind it with a total of 1536 disks. 3PAR’s Inserv T800 also had an 8 controller node configuration with only 280 disks but also costs less than the IBM SVC 4.3 system. Of course the top result is still provided by TMS and their DRAM SSD subsystem.

(SCISPC081118-002) (c) 2008 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

As for other metrics, the SPC-1 $/IOPS™ Top 10 results have also changed but this time the culprit was the lowend Fujitsu ETERNUS2000 Model 200. Considering the fact that it is mirrored 146GB drive storage it’s not clear why the other systems couldn’t compete at this level other than expense. Again both the Sun J4400 and J4200 have no RAID protection and probably should not be compared to the rest of the subsystems.

(SCISPC081118-003) (c) 2008 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Finally, the big jump up here is entirely in 3PARs favor but IBM’s SVC 4.3 has also made a significant uptick. Again, we calculate this metric as = IOPS / ($/GB) and created this metric as another way to factor in performance against cost and capacity. Both these products have significantly increased this metrics performance.

On the other hand, as has been pointed out to SCI, this metric may unfairly advantage big, monolithic subsystems at the expense of smaller subsystems. The monolithic subsystems generate such high IOPS counts that their relatively expensive $/GB doesn’t impact their ranking on this chart. In contrast, smaller subsystems, such as Xiotech’s Emprise may capable of putting up high IOPS rates by aggregating a number of smaller subsystems but in their current instantiation, their relatively modest $/GB doesn’t compensate for the resultant IOPS and hence they cannot compete on this chart. In such a configuration, even when taking additional switch port costs into account may still be significantly less costly than the systems shown on this chart.

Again the FAS3170 looks out of place here with these multi-million $ subsystems (3PAR, IBM SVC 4.3&4.2, Sun T9990V, HDS USP-V, and HP XP2400) but seems to provide relatively good performance for its price and capacity. Also, once again the Sun J4400 has no RAID protection whatsoever and probably should not be listed here.

SPC-2 results

(SCISPC081118-004) (c) 2008 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

There were also four new SPC-2 benchmarks recorded for this update, two for the IBM DS5300 (RAID 5&6) and one from HDS USP-V and the last from HP the XP24000 (an OEM version of the HDS USP-V). All four of these new SPC-2 results have cracked into the top 10 MPBS™.

As shown above the two HDS and HP benchmarks now reach over 8700 MBPS™ and the two DS5300s hit over 4600 MBPS™. Once again it is somewhat surprising that a relatively low-cost subsystem such as the IBM DS5300 can compete with all these million dollar subsystems (HP XP24000, HDS USP-V, and IBM SVC 4.2, 4.1, & 3.1)

Another place where the latest SPC-2 submissions have broken into the top 10 is in $/MBPS™. Perhaps it’s not surprising that the IBM’s DS5300 RAID 5 would beat out the RAID 6 version but it’s still somewhat confounding that the two HDS products with RAID 1 protection would crack into the top 10 here. Again, both the Sun J4200 and J4400 have no data protection and should probably not be compared to these other products.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in November of 2008. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this can be found at

SCI 2008 November 18 SPC performance update (PDF 1.0 MiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community

* All results from www.storageperformance.org as of 18 November 2008

Data Storage, Stategic Planning & Systems Development products and services | Silverton Consulting

SCI 2010 May 27 latest SPC benchmark results analysis

SPC-1*results

Significance

SCI 2010 Jan 28 last ESRP v2.1 (Exchange 2007) results analysis – 1K-to-5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.1 results

Conclusions

SCI 2009 Dec 31 Latest SPECsfs2008 results analysis

Latest SPECsfs2008 NFS results

Latest SPECsfs2008 CIFS results

Significance

SCI 2009 Nov 19 latest SPC benchmark results analysis

SPC-1*results

SPC-1/E

SPC-2 results

Significance

SCI 2008 Nov 18 Latest SPC-1 and SPC-2 results analysis

SPC-1*results

SPC-2 results

NEWS and EVENTS

TOP DOWNLOADS

TWITTER FEED...

POPULAR POSTS

NEWSLETTER

TRANSLATE THIS PAGE

Dispatch categories

Dispatch archives

Data Storage, Stategic Planning & Systems Development products and services | Silverton Consulting

SCI 2010 May 27 latest SPC benchmark results analysis

SPC-1*results

Significance

SCI 2010 Jan 28 last ESRP v2.1 (Exchange 2007) results analysis – 1K-to-5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.1 results

Conclusions

SCI 2009 Dec 31 Latest SPECsfs2008 results analysis

Latest SPECsfs2008 NFS results

Latest SPECsfs2008 CIFS results

Significance

SCI 2009 Nov 19 latest SPC benchmark results analysis

SPC-1*results

SPC-1/E

SPC-2 results

Significance

SCI 2008 Nov 18 Latest SPC-1 and SPC-2 results analysis

SPC-1*results

SPC-2 results

NEWS and EVENTS

TOP DOWNLOADS

TWITTER FEED...

POPULAR POSTS

NEWSLETTER

TRANSLATE THIS PAGE

Dispatch Tag Cloud

Dispatch categories

Dispatch archives