In article <2snmh1F1l77ipU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Rytis Sileika <rytis@_NS--PLEASE-REMOVE-THIS_dr.com> wrote:
>Fredrik Lundholm wrote:
>> In article <2sj0rjF1m0h16U1@uni-berlin.de>,
>> Vikas Agnihotri <usenet@vikas.mailshell.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone here has experience with the Sun StorEdge 3310 array?
>>
>>
>> Yes! It works!
>>
>>
>>>I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
>>>are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
>>>of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
>>>increase capacity?
>>
>>
>> With your needs, and the server you are using, try to afford the 3510 instead.
>> With the 3510 you get double the performance and mpxIO load-balancing/
>> path failover capability.
>>
>> When you grow the 3310 beyond one JBOD you loose host connections, and
>> 'there can be only one' after that.
>>
>> Regards
>> Fredrik
>>
>>
>>
>
>The only problem with 3510 is its price...
>As for performance, it will not double for a single node, however for a
>whole solution it would be better of course. What I mean is that with
>3310, you have 320MBytes, whereas with FC you have 2 x 2Gbits
>(200MBytes) or 400MBytes per host (anybody, please correct me if I'm
>wrong). So per host you have a performance increase of 80MBytes/sec. But
>with 3310 you are limited to two hosts per array (in redundant
>configuration), with 3310 you can go up to 4. So if you count overall
>performance (assuming all nodes write constantly to the storage):
>3310:
>2 x 320MB = 740MB/sec
>3510:
>4 x 400MB = 1600MB/sec (and this is indeed two times faster than 3310)
>

Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware
Subject:
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Keywords:
Cc:

--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se