topic Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp in Data Protection

sqlio results local disk vs netapp

sraja2005 — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:17:13 GMT

Just to test, I ran SQLIO

on a windows 2008 box (DL785) local disk (4x300G, RAID 10) vs a Netapp aggregate of 56 disks. Filer is running 7.2.6.1, this is a FC LUN. Aggregate is not really that loaded.

Surprisingly to me, the results show the C drive to be faster. I know there are various ways to tweak SQLIO but I still find this odd. Any suggestions would be appreciated:

SQLIO: 1 thread reading for 30 secs using 2KB IOs over 128KB stripes with 64 IOs per run:

Local C:\ [sqlio -dC]

IOs/sec: 5844.79
MBs/sec: 11.41

Netapp F:\ [sqlio -dF]

IOs/sec: 2547.88
MBs/sec: 4.97

SQLIO: 1 thread writing for 30 secs using 2KB IOs over 128KB stripes with 64 IOs per run:

Local C:\ [sqlio -kW -dC]

IOs/sec: 10116.73
MBs/sec: 19.75

Netapp F:\ [sqlio -kW -dF]

IOs/sec: 1895.42
MBs/sec: 3.70

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

evilensky — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:46:14 GMT

Have you check for partition alignment, LUN type mismatch, FC frame errors, other user-level errors?

This discrepancy is shocking and can only be some unoptimized settings.

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

evilensky — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:47:41 GMT

What type of disk is the 56 disk aggregate, its RG size? What is you measure of "not really that loaded" ? Are disk queue lengths and latency response high in perfmon? Do you have performance advisor on this aggregate? Are storage latencies high?

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

sraja2005 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:57:56 GMT

Aggregate is a 56 disk aggregate, with standard 16 disk raid groups, total aggregate iops in DFM never exceeds 500-1000. I have to look at all of the other stuff

Suresh

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

evilensky — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:01:42 GMT

What speed of disk?

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

lwei — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:20:15 GMT

What HBA(s) are you using? How about drivers? Thanks, -Wei

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

sraja2005 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:40:03 GMT

These are Emulex HBA's, with Netapp Host utilities, Snapdrive 6 and MPIO. Disks on the filer are 15k rpm

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

lwei — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:34:06 GMT

Can you provide the Emulex HBA model #? Also, what driver are you using? Version #? How about driver parameter, such as queue depth?

Thanks,

Wei

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

p_maniawski — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:02:52 GMT

Has your problem been solved? I think we have Thread Link : 13413. Can you share your thoughts?

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

BrendonHiggins — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:00:08 GMT

We had an issue like this at the back end of 2009. It was caused by a 'rogue' HBA driver that windows had download from the server vender. Replaced with the NetApp drive and issue resolved.

Hope it helps

Bren

Re: sqlio results local disk vs netapp

p_maniawski — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:26:35 GMT

Although we don't have HBA iSCSI NICs, this might be a NIC driver issue (or setting). We're using Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5709 cards. Had anyone problems with those?

-- edit--

As there are many models with this chipset, I'll be more precise - this is a default NIC implemented in IBM x3550M3 (2 port) + doughter card (2 port)