What about bus contention. I'm not familiar with the IBM model you mentioned, but if you are running PCI cards (32bit, 33MHz) then you do have a bit of a bottleneck there, plus if there are other expansion cards in the system they can slow things down.<br>
GC<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM, James Taylor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:James.Taylor@eastcobbgroup.com">James.Taylor@eastcobbgroup.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Make that 15k RPM *SAS* drives...<br>
<br>
>>> "James Taylor" <<a href="mailto:James.Taylor@eastcobbgroup.com">James.Taylor@eastcobbgroup.com</a>> 10/29/2009 05:04 PM >>><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">I would suggest that your datapaths are not going to be the bottleneck with SATA drives.<br>
I had a client running SATA for several years on an iSCSI appliance, and one day we hit a brick wall with the mail performance. We spent weeks trying to tune the I/O paths to deal with it, and when we looked at the actual SATA drive transfer capacity, we realized the drives were the problem.<br>
We replaced the drives with 15k RPM SATA drives, and life has been good ever since.<br>
Check your drive specs and see if that's where the limitation really is.<br>
-jt<br>
<br>
<br>
James Taylor<br>
The East Cobb Group, Inc.<br>
678-697-9420<br>
<a href="mailto:james.taylor@eastcobbgroup.com">james.taylor@eastcobbgroup.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.eastcobbgroup.com" target="_blank">http://www.eastcobbgroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:mmillard1@comcast.net">mmillard1@comcast.net</a>> 10/29/2009 04:49 PM >>><br>
<br>
<br>
I have a Suse OES server running on an IBM 346with 2 gig of RAM. I've installed two Addonics Multilane SATA cards connect with Multilane cables to external SATA enclosures housing 4 WD Caviar Green 1.5 TB Drives.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have about 1.8 TB of Data on one Enclosure which changes daily. My plan was to copy the 1.8 TB to the second enclosure daily and send the drives in that unit off site.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My expectation was that by having 4 independant SATA paths per unit would give me substatial performance when moving data between these units.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I'm seeing a constant speed of about 60 gig per hour. This is much slower than I expected. Have any of you done anything like this? Is this the kind of performance I should expect? Hopefull some of you bright people can share some wisdom with me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>