TMS tries to tarnish IBM Quicksilver pitch
Devil is in the detail #
Posted Thursday 30th October 2008 11:19 GMT
While I knew this box was coming from Woody and co at TMS, and in principle the concept is similar at a high level to what we demo'd as Quicksilver, in this case the 1M comparison is not apples for apples.
Our 1M IOPs was run with a mixed 70/30 ratio of reads and writes at 4K blocks. We all know that writes are the problem child for flash, and in some cases mixed workloads are even worse.
The TMS spec sheets don't give anything other than 100% read numbers, and doesn;t qualify at what transfer size.
If we take this at face value, and assume its small blocks 512byte or 1K, then the real number to compare this against Quicksilver would be 4.7Million IOPs. That is, if we had quote pure read numbers for Quicksilver. That would however have needed more SVC nodes, and several more fully populated Power Systems 595 hosts...
I'd like to see the 'details' - as I'm interested what the RamSan can do with a more realistic real-life workload.
Popular Whitepapers
- Analyst Keynote: The Register Agile Data Center Summit
On-Demand: Audio with slides - Seven ways to lower storage costs
Using a highly integrated, feature-rich data storage solution - Dell PowerEdge M710 with Dell EqualLogic storage vs. HP ProLiant BL685c with HP StorageWorks EVA 4400
Virtualizaed Exchange workload performance comparison of end-to-end solutions - High Throughput computing using Blue Gene
Exciting new workloads on Blue Gene, allowing for extreme scaling of applications. - Expert Roundtable: The Register Agile Data Center Summit
On-Demand Audio - Seven ways to optimize VMware server virtualization
Virtualized storage complimenting virtualized applications


