Subscribe

comparable model to ds3400

Hi,

Which Netapp model can be compared with speed to DS3400?

Is 2020 slower?

Is 2050 maybe?

Thanks

Re: comparable model to ds3400

For a single DS3400, the closest coparable model within the NetApp product line would be the FAS2020.  If you are planning to scale it I would sugguest that you look at the FAS2040.  The major caveat to the FAS2020 and the FAS2040 is that they do not scale very far.  The distinguishing difference between the FAS2020 and the FAS2040 is support for the DS4243 disk shelf.  The FAS2050 offers the ability to add at least one IO card.

I hope that this helps.

Re: comparable model to ds3400

Thanks,

This is what sales rep for Netapp told me,

but when I had a chat with IBM guy, he told me

that ds3400 is much faster...

The problem is that there are no banchmarks for 2020...

Re: comparable model to ds3400

Hi,

IBM DS3400 is their entry level box with FC connectivity. Whether it is faster or not comparing to FAS2020 is a subject to a discussion. E.g. for random workloads it will strictly depend on the number of spindles in each box.

The question is: how much performance do you really need? Your NetApp reseller should be able to size fairly accurately appropriate filer with the right number of disks (spindles) to match your actual environment / requirement.

Just as a rule of thumb FAS2020 should be good enough for few hundreds of users running multiple workloads (say Exchange, file sharing & SQL).

Also bear in mind that functionality of a NetApp filer goes far beyond just the performance - truly unified storage (SAN & NAS in one box), deduplication (of primary AND secondary storage), application-consistent snapshots, thin provisioning and few other goodies. DS3400 is no match if you look at it from this angle.

Regards,

Radek

Re: comparable model to ds3400

Thanks,

This goodies are reason why I want one

We will be moving 15 servers to vmware, also

we will move Oracle DB to storage.

I just feat that 2020 wont be able to handle the load

or that it would not be fast enough compared to 3400.

Re: comparable model to ds3400

I like "handle the load", I don't like "fast enough".

Is Lamborgini fast enough if I can drive it only 30mph due to the roads in my area?

Seriously though: 15 servers doesn't sound excessive for 2020. Interestingly enough, if your environment grows in the future, you can turn 2020 into 2040 by simply swapping the controllers.

Regards,
Radek

Re: comparable model to ds3400

What I meant was this example:

Currently most demanding report on oracle takes 15 minutes to complete.

I have to options - ds3400 or 2020.

If I go with ds3400 lets say that report will finish in 2 minutes,

My fear is that 2020 will finish it in 5 minutes.

I also don't know If virtual machines that will be on 2020 wont slow down DB

so that it would then run for 8 minutes,

where as with ds3400 would run with virtual machiens 5 minutes.

Regards,

Re: comparable model to ds3400

Yep, makes sense.

You should ask NetApp guys you are talking to for performance sizing. Tools for Oracle in particular are very straight forward, as they can collect stats from your existing environment (say exactly when you run the report in question).

One more thing which just crossed my mind - on NetApp you can FlexClone Oracle DB & run the report against the clone, thus minimizing the impact on a production environment. Or, even better, if you have clustered config, then SnapMirror from controller 1 to controller 2 & FlexClone at the destination, which will completely isolate IO activity associated with reporting from your production volume.

Regards,

Radek