I think you are hung on cach size. While the cache is less, the speed of the card is faster, so is the processor on the card, so is the speed slot that the 2780 (PCIx) vs a PCIe card will plug into. I *think* the bandwidth of the bus maybe larger as well, but not sure on that.
I agree on the number of arms, but you are only going to have 8 drives on an internal 4core, but if you have a 6 or 8core, you can put a 5887 off the SAS port, and that same internal CEC Disk controller will drive all 32 drives. Not too shabby !
Pete
--
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
http://www.iInTheCloud.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steinmetz, Paul
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:03 PM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: 9406 515 vs 8203 E4A
Pete,
We were using multiple 2780, 775 mb write cache. The P7 internal controller was only 175mb cache, less than 1/2 of P7 5805 (380mb cache) (P5 with 5709 was 40mb). Because of our high IO, everyone agreed the CEC cntl would be a potential performance bottleneck. Also confirmed by MPG performance planning tool.
Other factors.
Not hot swappable, battery maint.
Limited to number of arms that could be supported (8-12) SSDs are not supported in the externally attached disk drawer
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pete Massiello - ML
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: 9406 515 vs 8203 E4A
Paul,
I would beg to differ on your analysis of the internal controller in the CEC of a Power7 machine. Those are basically 5805 disk controllers, and they are pretty fast. You made a statement which was true at Power5, the disk controller in the CEC was slow and had a small amount of cache. But the internal ones in the Power7 are fast and have a good amount of cache, as it is basically a repackaged 5805 disk controller.
You need to keep up with the changes in technology generations, as what was correct in Power5 might not be correct in Power7.
Pete
--
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
http://www.iInTheCloud.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steinmetz, Paul
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 9:24 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: 9406 515 vs 8203 E4A
Tim,
I'd look at one of the new Power7+, 3 year warranty, reduced maint, etc.
Last year, we replaced a 9406-550 with a 740 8-core 8205-E6C. I could have went with a smaller model (720), but this was the smallest that gave me 2 loops, which we wanted for redundancy purposes. Only using 3 of the 8 cores, but had to buy 8 for the 2nd loop.
Couple of other factors.
All the slolts in the Power7 and/or + CEC are NOT hot swappable, P5 and P6 were.
Also had to replace LTO3 3583 tape library, not supported on Power7 and beyond.
If IO is an issue, I've learned from past experience, don't use the CEC embedded DASD controller for production, IO performance issues.
Our 8205-E6C comprised of 256gb mem, 2- 5877 PCIe drawers, 2-5887 EXP 24S DASD drawers, 4-PCIe2 1.8gb Cache RAID SAS Adapters, 18-177gb flash drives(production),30-571gb 10kRPM SAS drives, 2-5735 8gb PCI Express Dual Port Fiber Channel Adapters. Few other features.
The combination of the 1.8gb Cache controller and the SSD drives solved our IO issue, production 4X faster at a minimum. I waited till IBM announced these controllers, vital part of the solution.
Hope this all helps.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: 9406 515 vs 8203 E4A
Pete,
Are they publishing what 7.2 won't run on yet? I've yet to see anything "future" about "future" at
http://www-947.ibm.com/systems/support/i/planning/upgrade/futurehdwr.html
There, they still have references to 7.1 as "the release following i 6.1"
<snip>
IBM i Support of Selected System i and Power Models, September 2007 (updated June 2008, updated January 2009, updated June 2009)
IBM plans for IBM i 6.1 (formerly i5/OS V6R1) to be the final release supported on iSeries models 800, 810, 825, 870, and 890. The release following i 6.1 is planned to be supported on System i POWER5 models 515, 520, 525, 550, 570, 595, on System i POWER6 model 570, POWER6 Power 520, 550, 560, 570, 595, and on BladeCenter JS12, JS22, JS23 and JS43.
</snip>
I'm starting to really hammer on IBM on putting some future into future.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: Pete Massiello - ML <pmassiello-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 04/14/2013 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: 9406 515 vs 8203 E4A
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I think the best reason is the 7.2 won't be supported on a 9406-515, and the 8203-E4A would be the better of the two boxes, but not the best box.
In all honesty, I would look at a 8202-E4D (4-Core), as I think it will be a better cheaper decision when you take the cost of the hardware, software, and H/W maintenance over a 3 year life. SWMA should be the same as all are P05
Pete
--
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
http://www.iInTheCloud.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Wood
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:06 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: 9406 515 vs 8203 E4A
Tim,
Given these choices, I'd go with the 8203 as it's the Power6 chipset. It's usable and supported life will simply be longer than an aged Power5+...
Your options, CPW, and throughput with the Power6 will be superior (without picking apart CPU feature #'s).
Both are P05 software tier so the OS/LPP's (SWMA) will be the same. Both are V7R1 capable. Others can chime in with hardware MAINTENANCE considerations, reliability, and/or expand-ability ?
9406 515 withdrawn on Jan 1, 2009.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/systemi/515/
8203 E4A withdrawn on May 27, 2011.
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=dd&subtype=sm&appname=pseries&htmlfid=897/ENUS8203-_h01
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, tim.dclinc@xxxxxxxxx
<tim.dclinc@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
we are looking at these two systems to replace our older 170. I was
wondering which would be best and why. Also, with either run v7.1
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take
a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
----------------
Joe Wood
----------------
E: wood3875@xxxxxxxxx
M: 801-891-5223
S: Skype - josephgwood
T:
http://twitter.com/JosephGWood
L:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/josephgwood
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
