perf storwize v7000 eng

A comparison of storage performance

IBM DS4700 vs. IBM DS5300 vs. IBM Storwize V7000

1. Configuration of test data storage systems:

IBM DS4700 1GB RAM per controller HDD 15K RPM 3.5” (ST3300657FC 146GB) IBM DS5300 8GB RAM per controller HDD 15K RPM 3.5” (MBA3147FD 300GB) IBM Storwize V7000 8GB RAM per controller HDD 10K RPM 2.5” (Savvio 10K.3 300GB)

Features HDD, used in the test storage

MBA3147FD ST3300657FC

Savvio 10K.3

Average latency time: 2 ms 2-platter Areal density: 112.8 Gbits/sq. in. Power requirement (ready) 14.8 W

Average latency time: 2 ms 2-platter Areal density (avg) 225Gbits/sq. in. Average operating power 13.8W

Average latency time: 3 ms 2-platter Areal density (avg) 252Gbits/sq. in. Average operating power 4.4W

As can be seen from the above table, 10K RPM 2.5 "HDD SFF lose performance 15K RPM 3.5" HDD SFF, but have a substantially lower power consumption. According to tests of single disks, 15K RPM 3.5 "HDD give up 40% Input / Output operation Per Second (IOPS). But here, in this case, wondering how it will affect the final performance storage systems, whether we observe the same difference of 40% on iops? Proceed directly to the test.

2. When comparing the performance of the raid groups R10 used the following configuration:

IBM DS4700 One raid group R10 (8+8) IBM DS5300 One raid group R10 (8+8) IBM Storwize V7000 One raid group R10 (8+8)

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

latency, ms IBM DS470015K 3.5" HDD

IBM DS530015K 3.5" HDD

IBM V7000Storwize 10K2.5" HDD

diagram 2.1B

R1064 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 (16x15K 3.5"HDD)

IBM DS5300 (16x15K 3.5"HDD)

IBM V7000 Storwize(16x10K 2.5" HDD)

diagram 2.1A

R1064 I/O treads100%Random

R/W=80/20

2.1. Results of testing with a load of 64 I / O processes for the block size 4KB, 8KB, 32KB, 64KB, 256KB at 100% random and load ratio R/W = 80/20 are shown in diagr.2.1a. The corresponding response time of the disk subsystem at the time of testing shown in the diagram. 2.1b

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 16x 15K 3.5"HDD

IBM DS5300 16x 15K 3.5"HDD

IBM V7000 Storwize 16x10K 2.5" HDD

diagram 2.2A


4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

latency, msIBM DS470015K 3.5" HDD



diagram 2.2B


2.2. The results of testing at a load of 512 I / O processes for the block size 4KB, 8KB, 32KB, 64KB, 256KB at 100% random and load ratio R / W = 80/20 are shown in diagram.2.2a. The corresponding response time of the disk subsystem at the time of testing shown in the diagram. 2.2b.

3. When comparing the performance of the raid groups used the following configuration R5:

IBM DS4700 One raid group R5 (15+1) IBM DS5300 One raid group R5 (15+1) IBM Storwize V7000 One raid group R5 (15+1)

3.1. Results of testing with a load of 64 I / O processes for the block size 4KB, 8KB, 32KB, 64KB, 256KB at 100% random and load ratio R / W = 80/20 are shown in diagr.3.1a.

The corresponding response time of the disk subsystem at the time of testing shown in the diagram. 3.1b.

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0




diagram 3.1BR564 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 16x 15K 3.5"HDD

IBM DS5300 16x 15K 3.5"HDD


diagram 3.1AR564 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

3.2. The results of testing at a load of 512 I / O processes for the block size 4KB, 8KB, 32KB, 64KB, 256KB at 100% random and load ratio R / W = 80/20 are shown in diagr.3.2a. The corresponding response time of the disk subsystem at the time of testing shown in the diagram. 3.2b

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0,02,04,06,08,0

10,012,014,016,0





4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 16x 15K 3.5"HDD

IBM DS5300 16x 15K 3.5"HDD



4. When comparing the performance of the raid groups used the following configuration R6:

IBM DS4700 does not support this type of raid IBM DS5300 One raid group R6 (14+2) IBM Storwize V7000 One raid group R6 (14+2)

4.1. Results of testing with a load of 64 I / O processes for the block size 4KB, 8KB, 32KB, 64KB, 256KB at 100% random and load ratio R / W = 80/20 are shown in diagr.4.1a. The corresponding response time of the disk subsystem at the time of testing shown in the diagram. 4.1b.

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,0

8,0

latency, ms IBM DS4700 -not support

IBM DS5300 15K3.5" HDD



4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 - not support

IBM DS5300 16x 15K 3.5"HDD



4.2 Test results at a load of 512 I / O processes for the block size 4KB, 8KB, 32KB, 64KB, 256KB at 100% random and load ratio R / W = 80/20 are shown in diagr.4.2a.

The corresponding response time of the disk subsystem at the time of testing shown in the diagram. 4.2b.

As seen from these results, the same number of HDD, IBM Storwize V7000 on all types of raids, shows the best result * than the old IBM DS4700

and behind the IBM DS5300 to an average of 5-15% iops, but a third of tests shows with less response time.

* significantly worse outcome in iops and response time for the IBM DS4700 is in a block size of 256KB, presumably due to the lower plate density use HDD

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

latency, msIBM DS4700 15K3.5" HDD

IBM DS5300 15K3.5" HDD



4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0500

100015002000250030003500

4000

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 16x 15K3.5" HDD

IBM DS5300 16x 15K3.5" HDD



5. It is well known that in the case of R5 and R6 to a raid group Random Write performance is significantly lower than in the case of R10. But in a typical database workload, as a rule, the percentage of write operations at times less than the read operations. What will be the difference for the test pattern, simulating the load of a typical DBMS? For ease of comparison, we reduce to a single chart (5A) The results of IBM Storwize V7000, and the other (5B) the results of IBM DS5300.

As we can see the difference in performance R5 vs. R10 used in the pattern of 20-25% of the difference in usable capacity almost doubled.

Also worth noting is a very small difference in this pattern, the performance R5 vs. R6 with a significant difference in the resiliency of data raid groups, because R5 without loss of data can survive a single disk failure (any), and R6 - the simultaneous failure of any two drives.

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IOPS

block size

IBM DS5300 R6

IBM DS5300 R5

IBM DS5300 R10

diagram 5B

R6 vs. R5 vs. R10512 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

IOPS

block size

IBM Storwize V7000 R6



diagram 5A

R6 vs. R5 vs. R10512 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

6. Estimate the efficiency of data center space for each of the storage system on the example of the kind of performance, presumably, can be obtained using 18U ** Space RM-cabinet.

**for IBM DS5300 - 19U

As can be seen from the above chart, an example of test data storage systems, in terms of efficient use of space in the data center SFF-disc 2,5 "10K RPM is much more efficient LFF-drive 3,5" 15K RPM - more than 2 times.

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

IOPS

block size

IBM DS4700 96x 15K 3.5"HDD, total 18U


IBM V7000 Storwize 216x10K 2.5" HDD, total 18U

diagram 6AR10512 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

4K 8K 32K 64K 256K

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

IOPS

block size




diagram 6BR5512 I/O treads100%RandomR/W=80/20

6.1 Let's count the power consumption for each of the configurations (Section 6) and display the chart 6.1a. Based on the data, calculate the average density in watt/unit - figure 6.1B.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

total Watts




diagram 6.1A

0204060

80100

120

140

160

180

200

average

watt/unit

IBM DS4700 15K 3.5" HDD

IBM DS5300 15K 3.5" HDD

IBM V7000 Storwize 10K2.5" HDD

diagram 6.1B

6.2 How to evaluate the efficiency of each derivative of storage, according to the criterion of maximum / minimum IOPS / unit *** - figure 6.2a and maximum / minimum IOPS / Watt *** - figure 6.2B. According to the criteria of the benefits of storage with SFF HDD more than obvious.

*** In the test and calculated configurations were used only HDD media by using SSD - performance IOPS/Unit and IOPS/Watt will be much higher.

maximumminimum

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

iops/watt

IBM DS4700 15K 3.5" HDD

IBM DS5300 15K 3.5" HDD


diagram 6.2B

maximumminimum

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

iops/unit

IBM DS4700 15K 3.5" HDD

IBM DS5300 15K 3.5" HDD


diagram 6.2A

Application

- All tested storage systems were connected to the same LPAR with AIX 6.1 TL6 SP4

- Used a JFS2 file system

- The size of the tested area was 640GB (total size of the test files)

- To create a load test was used package nstress, in particular utility ndisk64

- For collecting and processing information about the response time of storage used by utilities NMON and NMON Analyser respectively

perf storwize v7000 eng

Technology

raid group r10

raid group r6

block size 4kb

raid group r5

ibm storwize v7000

raid groups

ibm ds4700

ibm ds5300