Reply to post: Re: Is the Store Once Catalyst/B6200 8-node cluster a single system?

Is the Store Once Catalyst/B6200 8-node cluster a single system?


Re: Is the Store Once Catalyst/B6200 8-node cluster a single system?

It is probably one more example of Benchmarks all vendors indulge in to outsmart the others.

I am saying this because, I wonder how many clients will need a Dedup System that can do 100 TB/Hr.

Having said that, I read about comments in this article questioning "Single Namespace, Multiple Indexes" in this HP Benchmark vis-a-vis other benchmarks including that of EMC's latest one where they have "Single Namespace, single / Global Index"...

I believe there is a merit / advantage in having "Multiple dedup Indexes" vis-a-vis one Single Large Global Index, especially as we are seeing more and more of these massive Dedup / Disk based Backup Systems backing up multitudes of Terabytes.

Back Then when we have limited capacities on Nodes & people needed a sort of "Federated Multi-Node" solution for more storage, having a Single Namespace & Global Index was a logical choice.

Today massive storage capacity on each node (B6200 max out at 192TB Raw per Couplet, that's really big) & that translate to 768TB Raw on 4 Couplet... What would be the performance if there is a Single Global Index ? I presume it doesn't need second guessing.

There are other downside of have one single large Global indexes. You can use little or no tricks to speed up specific backup jobs...

So, somehow I find this particular HP Benchmark do make Technical Sense, though practically there mat not be too many customers needing 768TB on a single namespace doing 100TB/Hr.

Many insensible benchmarks by many vendors come to my mind, not necessarily limited to Storage, but mostly in Systems benchmarks space..

1. Most recent is the VMAX-40K Mamoth with 2400 Drives

2. HP & IBM started the "TPC-C" benchmark competition way back -- Trying to out-do each other as to who can do the most millions of tpmc ona Single System/Single OS.

---- Probably if they partitioned their Superdomes and p595/p795 & achieved higher tpmC aggregates across multiple partitions, just benckmarks would have had real life relevance

3. So, when one vendor commits a crime another is infected too & Oracle does a 30million tpmC benchmark across a cluster of 27 SPARC servers -- TPC is not HPC, so why do a transactional workload benchmark on a massive SuperCluster..

List of such gross in-sensibilities is long. We users (who buy and run business on these technologies) have come to a point where where taking a holistic view of these.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon