[clug] Storage and networking for Storage as used for supporting [Enterprise] virtualized environments
Stephen Hocking
stephen.hocking at gmail.com
Sun Aug 18 12:06:50 UTC 2019
It's also be worth your while to do a deep dive into the comp.arch
newsgroup, which you should be able to get to via google news. There's lots
of discussions there involving some very well respected chip & system
designers.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 21:57, Brett Worth via linux <linux at lists.samba.org>
wrote:
> George,
>
> I think you are mixing bits per second and byes per second in that list.
> E.g the Ethernet numbers would be Gb/s and the SATA numbers would be
> MB/s.
>
> Brett
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug. 2019, 5:57 pm George at Clug via linux, <
> linux at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am looking for comments on my below research on "real world, a
> opposed
> > to theoretical" data speeds for various storage and network
> technologies;
> >
> > Below are the figures from my research (created for mono spaced font).
> > Device Realistic data throughput
> > ADSL 100KB/s, 200KB/s,400K/s, 1MB/s
> > 7200 RPM HD 30-80MB/s
> > 7200 RPM SATA 100MB/s
> > 10K RPM 100-130MB/s
> > 15K RPM 150-190MB/s
> > Ethernet 100BASE-T 10MB/s
> > Ethernet 1000BASE-T 116MB/s
> > Ethernet 1000BASE-T (Jumbo Frames) 123MB/s
> > SATA II 300MB/s
> > SSDs 530/500MB/s
> > SATA III 600MB/s
> > RAID 6 x6 HD 600MB/s (4x read speed, no write speed gain)
> > Ethernet 10GBASE-T 1.25GB/s
> > RAID 6 x24 HD 2.2GB/s (22x read speed, no write speed gain)
> > NVMe (M.2) 3.4GB/s (3500MB/s )
> > iSCSI 1GB/s, 10GB/s, and 40GB/s
> > Fibre Channel 1GB/s, 2GB/s, 4GB/s, 8GB/s, 10GB/s, 16GB/s, 32GB/s
> > and 128GB/s
> >
> > Not having much practical experience in Enterprise storage I am curious
> > about any comments people can or would like to make.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <B>Sources</B>
> >
> >
> >
> https://forum.huawei.com/enterprise/en/some-differences-between-scsi-iscsi-fcp-fcoe-fcip-nfs-cifs-das-nas-san/thread/229549-891
> > Some differences between SCSI, ISCSI, FCP, FCoE, FCIP, NFS, CIFS, DAS,
> > NAS, SAN.
> > Created: Sep 30, 2014 15:25:49Latest reply: Aug 6, 2019 20:20:21
> >
> > http://www.raid-calculator.com/default.aspx
> >
> > https://lenovopress.com/sg247986.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> https://forum.huawei.com/enterprise/en/some-differences-between-scsi-iscsi-fcp-fcoe-fcip-nfs-cifs-das-nas-san/thread/229549-891
> > Network-attached
> > <
> https://forum.huawei.com/enterprise/en/some-differences-between-scsi-iscsi-fcp-fcoe-fcip-nfs-cifs-das-nas-san/thread/229549-891Network-attached
> >
> > storage (NAS), in contrast to, uses file-based protocols such as NFS or
> > SMB/CIFS where it is clear that the storage is remote, and computers
> > request a portion of an abstract file rather than a disk block. The key
> > difference between direct-attached storage (DAS) and NAS is that DAS is
> > simply an extension to an existing server and is not necessarily
> networked.
> > NAS is designed as an easy and self-contained solution for sharing files
> > over the network.
> > Network File System (NFS) is a distributed file system protocol
> originally
> > developed by Sun Microsystems in 1984, allowing a user on a client
> computer
> > to access files over a network in a manner similar to how local storage
> is
> > accessed. On the contrary, CIFS is its Windows-based counterpart used in
> > file sharing.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/storage-virtualization
> >
> > https://esj.com/articles/2014/05/16/fibre-channel-or-iscsi.aspx
> > Fibre Channel infrastructure operates at throughput speeds of 1, 2, 4, 8,
> > 10 and 16GB per second (GB/s). Over the years, speeds have continued to
> > increase as storage performance demands have accelerated. Even faster
> > speeds of 32GB/s and 128GB/s are expected to hit the market in the next
> > couple of years.
> > iSCSI uses standard Ethernet switches and cabling and operates at speeds
> > of 1GB/s, 10GB/s, and 40GB/s.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/ssd-vs-hdd-speed.html
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/nvme-vs-m-2-vs-sata-whats-the-difference/
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/data_transfer_rate/dEtherthous.html?u=dEtherthous&v=1
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.cablefree.net/wireless-technology/maximum-throughput-gigabit-ethernet/
> > Theoretical throughput of Gigabit Ethernet with jumbo frames, and using
> > TCP:
> > 997Mbps – .886 – 1.33 – 1.55 – .443 – 2.21 – 2.21 – 1.33 = 987Mbps or
> > 123MB/s.
> > The approximate throughput for Gigabit Ethernet without jumbo frames and
> > using TCP is around 928Mbps or 116MB/s.
> >
> > http://rickardnobel.se/actual-throughput-on-gigabit-ethernet/
> > Conclusion: Default Gigabit Ethernet has an impressive number of frames
> > (about 81000 per second) possible and a high throughput for actual data
> > (about 118 MB/s). By increasing the MTU to 9000 we could deliver even
> more
> > data on the same bandwidth, up to 123 MB/s, thanks to the decreased
> amount
> > of overhead due to a lower number of frames. Jumbo Frames could use the
> > whole of 99% of Gigabit Ethernet bandwidth to carry our data.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/nvme-vs-m-2-vs-sata-whats-the-difference/
> > Modern motherboards use SATA III which maxes out at a throughput of
> > 600MB/s (or 300MB/s for SATA II, in which case, it’s time to upgrade).
> Via
> > that connection, most SSDs will provide Read/Write speeds in the
> > neighborhood of 530/500 MB/s. For comparison, a 7200 RPM SATA drive
> manages
> > around 100MB/s depending on age, condition, and level of fragmentation.
> > NVMe drives, on the other hand, provide write speeds as high as 3500MB/s.
> > That’s 7x over SATA SSDs and as much as 35x over spinning HDDs!
> >
> > https://photographylife.com/nvme-vs-ssd-vs-hdd-performance
> > In just read performance alone, my M.2 drive turned out to be a whopping
> > 25x times faster than my enterprise-grade WD 2 TB 7200 RPM drive. That is
> > just mind boggling, considering that SSD is only around 5x times faster
> in
> > comparison. In write speed, I was able to witness up to 15x more
> > performance, which is also a very impressive number. And that’s just for
> > one type of sequential read/write load – if you look at the above
> numbers,
> > other performance metrics indicate even larger, more noticeable gains.
> >
> > https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/
> > 7200 RPM full drive writes average about 115 MB/sec
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/raid-controllers/4047-raid-levels#16
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.atto.com/software/files/techpdfs/TechnicalSpecifications_FastFrameNIC.pdf
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/gigabit-ethernet
> > Given a further 1% of overhead for TCP, this leaves a total of 118.75
> MB/s
> > for data transmission.
> >
> > Below are the figures from my research (created for tabs).
> > Device Realistic data throughput
> > ADSL 100KB/s, 200KB/s,400K/s, 1MB/s
> > 7200 RPM HD 30-80MB/s
> > 7200 RPM SATA 100MB/s
> > 10K RPM 100-130MB/s
> > 15K RPM 150-190MB/s
> > Ethernet 100BASE-T 10MB/s
> > Ethernet 1000BASE-T 116MB/s
> > Ethernet 1000BASE-T (Jumbo Frames) 123MB/s
> > SATA II 300MB/s
> > SSD 530/500MB/s
> > SATA III 600MB/s
> > RAID 6 x6 HD 600MB/s (4x read speed, no write speed gain)
> > Ethernet 10GBASE-T 1.25GB/s
> > RAID 6 x24 HD 2.2GB/s (22x read speed, no write speed gain)
> > NVMe (M.2) 3.4GB/s (3500MB/s )
> > iSCSI 1GB/s, 10GB/s, and 40GB/s
> > Fibre Channel 1GB/s, 2GB/s, 4GB/s, 8GB/s, 10GB/s, 16GB/s,
> 32GB/s
> > and 128GB/s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > linux mailing list
> > linux at lists.samba.org
> > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
> >
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>
--
"I and the public know
what all schoolchildren learn
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return" W.H. Auden, "September 1, 1939"
More information about the linux
mailing list