We're in the process of moving our backup system to using an array of 7 FC
9940B drives in an STK powderhorn robot..  over the past few weeks we've
been doing some general benchmarking with the drives and have achieved
greater than 31MB/sec per drive with an average around 26MB/sec with live
data (the tests were done against several TBs of images).

we're using a sun E450 as our test media server with gig network pipes to 
the data..

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Johnny Oestergaard wrote:

> I don't realy have any good numbers on compression on the 9940 drives, but 
> on the SVA9500 we have a compression of exchange at 1,5. SQL 2,5. Windows 
> fileserver 1,7.
> I would expect the same on the 9940 drives
> 
> Filesize is anything from 1KB to 1GB (or more)
> 
> The best we get at the moment on the drives is around 13 MB/s. We have seen 
> more but not often, but we haven't done that much for performance anyway. 
> And we use Win2K on the media servers and we don't dare to try using 
> anything bigger then 64KB blocks.
> 
> Network buffers on clients are 1024KB. I don't remember what's on the media 
> servers, but it's a lot more (1-2GB machines so who cares about allocationg 
> too much to buffers)
> 
> HBA's are Qlogic 2200/66F over StorageNet 4116 switches (Brocade Silkworm)
> 
> Moving from 9840 to depends mostly on what kind of needs you have.
> Using 9940B's will give you a lot more data in your library then using 
> 9840B, but remember if you are used to the mount times and seek times on 
> 9940B you will think of 9940B as slooow.
> 
> In a HSM system with a lot of tapemounts 9940B could slow down your system, 
> but if what you have is a "normal" backup/recovery senario you could end up 
> with a faster total system performance with 9940B.
> 9940B is faster then 9840B, except for mount/dismount and seek, and you 
> need less mounts to backup eg 1 TB data to 9940B then to 9840B.
> 
> We use 9940A and will upgrade to 9940B as soon as StorageTek starts 
> shipping them again.
> 
> I made an evaluation of 9840 when we went for 9940, and in our installation 
> 9940 was a much better drive.
> 
> /johnny
> 
> 
> At 11:20 21-11-2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >I am looking for some rough numbers for the above StorageTek drives
> >in a NT4/W2K environment over FC.
> >
> >What level of compression are you achieving? 1.5, 1.7, 2.0 to 1?
> >What kind of data are you handling?
> >How large is your average file? 20k, 200k, 2000k, larger?
> >What kind of performance are you seeing and how are you connected
> >to get the numbers you are seeing?
> >What if any buffer setting changes have you made?
> >If connected over FC, what HBA are you running and are you
> >running 1 or 2gb connections?
> >
> >I know some of this is rather general, but I trying to make some decisions
> >on if moving from 9840's to 9940B's is worth the expense, time and hassle.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> >http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>