How fast is the 4200?

[jkstrsn]

Hello all, this is my first post, thanks in advance for your input.

Background: I have a 10+ year old IBM315 server, running NT4, with a 4 gb scsi hard disk. This piece of gear has a Pentium Pro 200 processor, and has been rock solid for the entire time I've owned it. Unfortunately I've greatly outgrown its space.

I have a small office with 5 computers accessing the fileserver, we heavily use shared Quickbooks and Q&A databases. Although we don't have a large number of users, speedy access to these databases to run reports and do operations is essential to keep us humming.

So, wanting to avoid Windows licensing hassles, after much research I picked up a Powervault 705N on eBay, which arrived in like new condition. What I've found is that while the unit has the storage I need and the security of RAID, it is quite a bit slower in throughput than my old IBM. Comparing a database stored on the Powervault to an identical one stored on the IBM, it takes from 10 to 40% longer to do an operation on the Powervault versus the IBM, depending on the operation (copy, report, etc.)

The Snap is:
Model Software Hardware Serial# BIOS
705N 3.1.618 (US) 2.2.1 515803 2.4.437

My question for you is, would a newer generation Snap such as a 4200 (or do I need a 4500 which is a bit more than I can spend) meet my needs, or will I be unlikely to be happy with a Snap after using the IBM with SCSI? Is 10 year old SCSI just faster than ATA all around, or is the limit the slower processor in the 4100?

I'm really considering trying a 4200 (I can get my $$ back out of the 4100) but I'd appreciate your input. My budget is maybe 1500-2000 but I could stretch it a bit if I have to.

Is SCSI the difference or not? And do you think the newer Snap will meet my needs?

Thanks, Jeff

[re3dyb0y]

The newer ones have gigabit, so that could make some difference

And the newer ones have more ram, making it more usable


The Guardian OS based versions are supposed to be higher preformance, but only having experience of a 2200, i can't really say


If it is only databases, you could just get a reasonable spec PC, make sure there is a reasonable amount of Ram (2GB or so), stick linux on it, or even Windows XP.....

[jkstrsn]

Thanks for the ideas. All we share are 3 databases, the rest is just documents. I have wondered if XP would work as wel as the expensive "server" software, since I don't need any of the other features.

Anyone own a 4200 or similar and care to compare it's speed with a 4100?

[blue68f100]

You might look in the PV and see if it is using 5400 rpm drives. Upgrade to 7200 would help.

[jkstrsn]

Thanks blue I'll check that out when I get a chance. I will surely upgrade them if I keel the unit, they are small 40Gig ones now.

Anyone have any opinions on how the 4200 or similar might compare to a Windows based server speed-wise?

Thanks, Jeff

[re3dyb0y]

ut i know it will be faster as that has always been a complaint about the snaps

The 4100's are slightly faster due to hardware raid


I know if these unis crash they can take a while to get them online, and also if it does die, it would be very difficult to get data off

Whereas windows, could be a lot better

[jkstrsn]

I do agree that recovery options might be better with Windows; if the powervault 705 had worked out i was going to pick up a spare one for parts in case the first one went down, to have a way to read the drives.

The things I don't like about Windows are licensing fees, and I have heard that the newer server platforms aren't as stable as NT and require a bit more rebooting and such.

The 4100 definitely isn't fast enough, wish I knew more about a 4200, or any other altenative to paying Mr. Bill!

[snapwall]

I just had my new 4200 for only few days so still learning the features as I go...

One reason why I chose 4200 is future proofing as it supports iSCSI (SCSI commands wrapped in TCP/IP packets). In comparison, to using normal protocol, iSCSI would have less overhead and hence provide slightly faster Read/Write process as it is using raw SCSI commands.

It is also capable of supporting 2.6TB of data by stacking two snap 10 which are 1TB each via external SCSI. So plenty of room to grow.


As for the specs on the 4200:

2 x 1000/100/10 Ethernet Inteface
OS Version: GuardianOS 3.1.079
CPU: GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.00GHz
Memory: 250 MB


Also supports hotswappable drives and harddrives are located at the front and slides out for easy access.

There are few more software that comes with 4200 like Bak Bone's netvault and CA eTrust Antivirus as bundle.

Not sure what I can do compare speeds vs 4100 as I don't have access to 4100 but let me know what info you need I try and get that for you while I have the machine.

Hope this helps..

[jkstrsn]

Thanks Snapwall. From the specs, it would appear that the 4200 should be a LOT faster, but I wish I had a comparison.

If you wanted to take the time, the following would help me out, if you have at least one machine on your network running XP.

If you could copy a large file (I used one that was 202 Megabytes, but choose your own just let me know the size) from your server to your desktop and time the transfer time in seconds I'd appreciate it. I'd also appreciate timing it the other way.

Let me know how your snap is set up (Raid 5?) and also the speed of your network if you don't mind.

I know there are much better ways of testing things, but this is what I've been using. If you have some other benchmark already run, let me know and I'll try to run it on this end if I can.

I'm just trying to find out how data transfer times compare between my powervault 705N, a new 4200, and my old NT4 setup.

From my PV705N to my desktop takes 72 seconds; copying it back to the powervault takes 92 seconds. The time varies a little with each run, but this is a good average.

If you don't have the time I totally understand.

[snapwall]

Hi jkstrsn,

OK, I did the quick test and here the result.

Environment:

Client: Running WinXP with Fast Ethernet interface (100Mb)
Switch: Cisco 3550 set with Fast Ethernet interface (100Mb)
SNAPserver: running 3.1 GuardianOS with Fast Ethernet mode set
File Size: 211MB

Method: drag and drop over Netbios over TCP/IP

Transfer time: 26.7sec

I am sure there are better ways to fine tune the accuracy so if anyone knows...don't be shy to share with us ;-)

Transfer Rate = 211M / 26.7 sec = 7.9MB per sec (over 100Mbps switch)

Hope this helps.

[jkstrsn]

Snapwall, THANKS for taking the time. While not totally scientific (lots of variables from yours to mine) it does sound like there is a marked performance increase.

I assume your Snap is Raid 5 and 4 drives? Might make a difference.

Jeff

[snapwall]

Yes, RAID 5 with 4 drives.

Also, if I could get a hold of Gigabit Ethernet switch, stats would change as well of course.

Whats transfer rate are you getting? Just out of interest and comparison...

Thanks

[jkstrsn]

Transfer Rate = 202M / 72 sec = 2.8MB per sec from XP to powervault

Transfer Rate = 202M / 92 sec = 2.2MB per sec from Powervault to XP

My switch is an SNC (I forget the model) with 100MB, and the XP machine is running an Athlon 1800, so probably some room for improvement there. I am thinking pretty strongly about the 4200 now.

How big are your drives I wonder, and are you using both ethernet ports?

[jkstrsn]

I meant SMC not SNC

[snapwall]

My drives are 4x80GB but trying to source 320G or 400GB drives so I can have 1.6TB eventually.

I'm not using the 2nd ethernet port but I'll try configuring the load balancing using both ports and see if my performance improves..! Stay tuned!

[snapwall]

Hi Jeff,

I had 62 sec when transferring 211MB under load balancing mode using two ethernet ports!!!

This was bizzare so I checked again and found out that my switch and the SNAP server had AUTO NEGOTIATE set for speed and duplex mode. Common issue and screws up lot of things. So manully set the Ethernet to 100Mbps at FULL duplex and the result was pretty much in the order as before 25 sec (+/- 1sec error). So load balancing didn't really improve the performance.

I did further testing like pulling the 2nd port while file was transferring and it continued to transfer seamlessly without interruption and again at 25-26sec transfer time.

So result - not much difference in improving the transfer rate but now I have redundancy. There is another option for failover which I assume allows you to use single IP Address and failover to the 2nd port.

While for the Load balancing you to specify IP addresses for each port.
And Yes, it does truly load balance, the two ports flicker like christmas tree!!!

[jkstrsn]

Very interesting! Maybe it would start to make a difference with multiple users accessing the server at the same time.

I checked my server's setup also, there is no option to set the port to auto configure or not, however it says it is 100mb full duplex.

As far as I know, the 4200 can be upgraded with standard drives, is this correct?

[snapwall]

You maybe right. Multiple users would certainly make a difference when load balancing features are set.

Also, you can upgrade with any standard drives. I got WD drives but looking at segate or sticking with WD but with larger drives in the future.

[re3dyb0y]

Seagate are great due to the 5 year warranty

WD are also very good quality

[jkstrsn]

Readyboy, I also like Seagate, especially with their 5 year warranty. WD is fine also, I do not care for Maxtor though.

I ordered a 4200 today, I got a good deal on an "open box" one. At least it will be a good deal as long as it arrives in good shape.

Snapwall, I really did appreciate your running that test, that's what made me decide to proceed.

Jeff

[snapwall]

Hi Jeff,

Great! Well at least I got 4200 peer in this forum now! :-)

How much did you purchase the "open box" for?

Cheers
Snapwall

[re3dyb0y]

wrong section

[jkstrsn]

1192.00 + shipping.

[jontz]

Originally Posted by jkstrsn

Thanks for the ideas. All we share are 3 databases, the rest is just documents. I have wondered if XP would work as wel as the expensive "server" software, since I don't need any of the other features.

WinXP would work, however you are limited to 10 connections at a time. Windows XP isn't as efficient at disk access either, but if you only have a few people then that shouldn't be a problem either. Just my $0.02

[jkstrsn]

Thanks Jontz, I wondered what the limitations were on XP as a server. I didnt' know for sure if it would handle the database sharing or not, good to know that it would.

Jeff