HP: Our 3PAR kit can cram twice as many VMs into your server

"Hang on, you're banging on about benchmarks being invalid, but it's you who started the performance discussion by stating XIV had the much superior architecture and would smoke 3PAR amongst others. It's apparent from your posts you're not equipped to make those claims as you don't grasp the basics of storage performance or understand the alternative architectures you are attempting to slate."

You are talking about benchmarks whereas I am talking about what happens in the real world. In benchmark land, VMAX and probably 3PAR will outperform XIV. In a real world environment it is likely XIV will outperform VMAX and 3PAR. No contradiction. That is because you can easily be running VMAX, for instance, at far less than optimal levels whereas it is virtually impossible to make any decisions or errors that will impact XIV's performance. For instance, in a real world environment, people may be at a point where they should really add another node to the VMAX or 3PAR matrix in order to maintain performance. As the cost of a node is high and the cost of continuing to add disk is low, they may just add disk and degrade performance because of budgetary issues. There are far more decisions to be made in allocating resources to hot or high priority workloads and objects in VMAX and 3PAR. If a company doesn't have a dedicated expert or someone with the time to constantly monitor the system, performance could get really whacked out really quickly (especially as all but the largest companies do not dedicate staff specifically to SAN). XIV requires no SAN expertise or staffing, you can't screw it up.

Benchmarks are not "invalid" per se. They are just idealized versions of the systems on idealized versions of the workload. The Ford 500 at NASCAR really does go 250 miles per hour and you could really buy that car. If you have the budget to buy the ultimate configuration of the system and have a team of engineers spending hours tuning the system to every workload, it is possible. It is not that they are "invalid" it is that they are unrealistic and not at all cost effective.


Back to the forum


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017