Re: 520 Config

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

> I know this config was done using IBMs configuration tool, would it build a system that was not going to perform well?

Sure, the config tool can only tell if the config is valid.

> I know this is a hard question to answer without a whole lot more information but, generally, wouldn't going from 23 arms to 10 > create a bottleneck at disk IO?

Not necessarily, the new disks and controllers are a heck of a lot
faster than the old.  Search the archives, you're find a post from Rob
Berendt about his experience moving from 50+ (?) drives to 9(?) or
something equally outlandish.

It all depends on the hardware you're coming from and what you are going to.

Your BP should have been able to pull your PM/400 data from IBM to use
in sizing your new system.
http://www.ibm.com/eserver/iseries/support/estimator

If you'd like, Midrange Performance Group offers a "Second Opinion
Service (SOS)" whereby you install their performance tool, collect
some data and give you their opinion.  Flat fee cost starting at
$1,500.  http://www.mpginc.com/sos.htm

HTH,
Charles


> We are looking to upgrade our 520 and our business partner has proposed this config
> 2 CPUS 8300 CPW
> 32GB RAM
> 10 - 139.5GB disk drives
>
> We currently run 1 CPU, 16GB RAM and 23 drives of various sizes.