Posted Wednesday 3rd September 2008 09:12 GMT
The SPC-1 test only has 6 nodes, imagine what the box can do with all 8! Seems to be roughly 74k IOPS per pair of nodes, so another 2 nodes would put it up in the 300k IOPS range, whew.
Can't wait to get my T400 eval!
Posted Wednesday 3rd September 2008 09:12 GMT
How can you seriously compare a 3Par T800 with an HP XP24000? They are not in the same league. The 3Par is a Tier 2 device running only SATA drives and the XP is a top end Tier 1 solution running FC drives and with significantly more scalability without even going into the other factors that make a real Tier 1 array. To compare $/IOPS on these is like comparing a Mini with a Ferrari or Accrington Stanley with Real Madrid.
SPC benchmarks are notourisouly dubious anyway as the configurations used to gain these numbers in no way compare to real-life scenarios or configurations. They are just marketing hype that no one in the real world takes seriously.
Posted Wednesday 3rd September 2008 12:53 GMT
M'lud, may I respectfully beg to differ? The 3PAR Mini went faster than the HP XP2400 Ferrari. In the SPC-1 summary the 3PAR box is listed as having 146GB 15K FC drives. So, at face value, one Fibre channel drive array went faster than another Fibre Channel drive array. 3PAR sells against DS6000/DS8000 from IBM, Symmetrix and high-end Clariion from EMC and XP/high-end EVA from HP. It is an enterprise drive array supplier in my view. I've seen an IBM XIV in-house training doc and IBM reckons that 3PAR is the XIV's main competitive focus with the XIV being positioned as a sell into cloud storage/storage as a service customers where the DS8000 has been rejected. This InServ array of 3PAR's is, I'd suggest, a bit more appealing to enterprises than you might give it credit for.
I am, respectfully y'r honour, y'r obedient servant, etc. etc.
Back to the article
