RE: Performance of Virtual Server vs Hyper-V?

Regarding iSCSI and Fibre Channel, I wouldn't say one is superior to the
other. They fill different needs.

In high-end enterprises, Fibre Channel is the dominant SAN technology and
provides very high speed, reliability, scalability and its traffic doesn't
interfere with the LAN. Typically in high-end enterprises, there are
full-time staff dedicated to storage, so Fibre Channel fits in very nicely.
Fibre Channel gear uses optical networking hardware and adapters that fully
offload all the I/O processing from the host CPUs, so you get tremendous I/O
throughput with low CPU utilization. However, all this comes at a price, as
the HBAs and switches are not cheap.

In the small and mid-size business, iSCSI seems to have more appeal. This is
due in part because the smaller shops don't have full-time storage people and
the budgets are smaller. iSCSI technology can be run on existing copper
gigabit LANs, as long as you segment the iSCSI traffic away from the normal
LAN traffic. Because iSCSI runs over TCP/IP, which is normally run in the
host O.S. software stack, you have higher host CPU utilization, just as you
do when your LAN gets busy. However, the added iSCSI traffic may not be an
issue if your LAN is not too busy. Because it works with the regular LAN,
iSCSI is simpler to install and deploy.

I typically use a separate hardware adapter for RAID controllers, but some
RAID on motherboard works fine. You have to compare features and price and go
with what works for you.

Best regards

"markm75" wrote:

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > Yes, iSCSI is one form of a SAN. The benefits of a SAN are that you can have
> > your primary storage available to all the application servers in a big "pool"
> > of storage. The storage is not "captive" to any one server so that as storage
> > needs change, storage is allocated where it is needed. Also, when a server
> > needs to be replaced, you don't have to move the data from the old server to
> > the new server, it's just there on the SAN.
> >
> > In Logical Disk Manager, SAN storage (iSCSI or Fibre Channel) appears to the
> > host server the same way that internal direct attached storage does. So the
> > applications and users don't know (or care) that the storage is on a SAN.
> >
> > There are many good SAN storage solutions that use iSCSI as the interface. I
> > did a large iSCSI deployment white paper for Microsoft last year that is
> > available on Microsoft's website and on mine at:
> > http://www.demartek.com/Demartek_Dep...s_2007-06.html.
> >
>
> Nice, i've added that document to my list of things to explore here in the
> near future.
>
> Do you feel iSCSI to be superior to Fibre channel as a whole though?
>
> I guess in terms of a SAN, for us, since doing Virtual hosting, SAS would be
> the only way to go, especially for longevity.
>
> With a SAS, would you still recommend having a seperate 3rd party addon
> controller card, ie: Areca Pciex8 etc, as oppossed to using the built in
> motherboard raid functions?
>
> (I usually go with raid1 for the OS, then raid6 for the data, or in the case
> of exchange, raid1 for the logs, raid6 for the data, but its hardware raid
> off of a dedicated card, which also does the other arrays, ie: all in one).
> I've not used motherboard raid as of yet.
>
> I figured motherboard raid could save a few bucks but not sure that its
> worth it.
>
> Cheers

"Dennis29" wrote:

> Regarding iSCSI and Fibre Channel, I wouldn't say one is superior to the
> other. They fill different needs.
>
> In high-end enterprises, Fibre Channel is the dominant SAN technology and
> provides very high speed, reliability, scalability and its traffic doesn't
> interfere with the LAN. Typically in high-end enterprises, there are
> full-time staff dedicated to storage, so Fibre Channel fits in very nicely.
> Fibre Channel gear uses optical networking hardware and adapters that fully
> offload all the I/O processing from the host CPUs, so you get tremendous I/O
> throughput with low CPU utilization. However, all this comes at a price, as
> the HBAs and switches are not cheap.
>


Since I'm a one man shop here at our company of 40 users and 3-4 servers
(host servers).. i'd probably have to favor the iSCSI..

However, i did find what seems to be an unreal deal..

A SAS dual controller (and expandable beyond the one chasis) unit for $6800
plus drives and it supports SAS and SATA at the same time.

The combo of the unit plus 1TB seagate 7200RPM SAS drives runs $9168. (fibre
channel though)

(link:
http://www.superwarehouse.com/Promis...0FD/ps/1518783 )

I dont, however, think i would ultimately do our DPM backup server onto the
same SAN device, i'd probably stick with the dedicated DPM drives on the same
chassis.

Thanks for all this incite as this is very useful for our near term
planning, especially virtual server related.

"markm75" wrote:

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > Regarding iSCSI and Fibre Channel, I wouldn't say one is superior to the
> > other. They fill different needs.
> >
> > In high-end enterprises, Fibre Channel is the dominant SAN technology and
> > provides very high speed, reliability, scalability and its traffic doesn't
> > interfere with the LAN. Typically in high-end enterprises, there are
> > full-time staff dedicated to storage, so Fibre Channel fits in very nicely.
> > Fibre Channel gear uses optical networking hardware and adapters that fully
> > offload all the I/O processing from the host CPUs, so you get tremendous I/O
> > throughput with low CPU utilization. However, all this comes at a price, as
> > the HBAs and switches are not cheap.
> >
>
>
> Since I'm a one man shop here at our company of 40 users and 3-4 servers
> (host servers).. i'd probably have to favor the iSCSI..
>
> However, i did find what seems to be an unreal deal..
>
> A SAS dual controller (and expandable beyond the one chasis) unit for $6800
> plus drives and it supports SAS and SATA at the same time.
>
> The combo of the unit plus 1TB seagate 7200RPM SAS drives runs $9168. (fibre
> channel though)
>
> (link:
> http://www.superwarehouse.com/Promis...0FD/ps/1518783 )
>
> I dont, however, think i would ultimately do our DPM backup server onto the
> same SAN device, i'd probably stick with the dedicated DPM drives on the same
> chassis.
>
> Thanks for all this incite as this is very useful for our near term
> planning, especially virtual server related.
>
>

I should also add, i did in fact, find an HP that looks really good as well:

http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/Mid...&ci_sku=AJ927A

I'm sure we could get a fairly good deal from our HP rep.