"Saridakis, George" <gsaridakis@rsasecurity.com> on 03/02/2000 14:48:00
To: Andrew Mcdonagh/MAIN/MC1@MCMAIN, "Saridakis,
George" <gsaridakis@rsasecurity.com>
cc: cciug@Rational.Com
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
>What makes all of this so complicated is that organizations typically grow
>organically and what works for a small group becomes more painful so
>incrementally that people don't typically notice until new blood arrives
>into an organization and says - how come performance is so abysmal (usually
>with not so kind language).
:-)) thats exactly what has happened here....
Cheers for your input....
Andy
Analysis of ClearCase performance equations in "some" environments can be an
unusually complex.
My thoughts include:
s/w build system design can influence performance significantly (for better
or worse)
CC performance tuning "stuff" needs to be understood and analysis performed
for applicability
raid equations matter - you can't get raid 0 performance from a machine
striped raid 5
s/w raid is more expensive than h/w raid
server performance analysis must be done so that bottlenecks are identified
and dealt with
network traffic analysis/profiling can be key although in many cases this is
difficult to do by us amateurs without expert support/tools
What makes all of this so complicated is that organizations typically grow
organically and what works for a small group becomes more painful so
incrementally that people don't typically notice until new blood arrives
into an organization and says - how come performance is so abysmal (usually
with not so kind language).
george
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew.Mcdonagh@marconicomms.com
[mailto:Andrew.Mcdonagh@marconicomms.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 9:14 AM
To: Saridakis, George
Cc: cciug@Rational.Com
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
Thanks for this George,
Its a little strange though...one of our other departments use CC on a unix
platform, and they changed from Sun boxes as the vob server & storage
location,
to using a NetApp. The NetApp contains the vobs and the views pools. They
saw
build time drop from 48 minutes to 7 minutes.
Needless to say ...we'd like to see something like that ourselves.. :-)
Andy
"Saridakis, George" <gsaridakis@rsasecurity.com> on 03/02/2000 14:12:30
To: Andrew Mcdonagh/MAIN/MC1@MCMAIN
cc:
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
Andrew,
I don't think the remote pools are a performance win, but I cannot
accurately define the penalty because you have to define the comparison
environment - for example, here is some mail I recently sent to cciug:
------------snip
We are trying to understand some significant build performance differences
when we recently migrated our vob/view server architectures.
Old installations had databases on Sun hosts/local disks with remote pools
on a Netapps 740 raid 5 system, and performance metrics on the servers did
not show them to be excessively "loaded".
New installations have everything local on Sun raid 0 disks + we have
eliminated frame->cell->frame ATM SAR by making the network environment
switched Ethernet.
We have seen our build times cut by 50-65%.
Does anyone have any benchmarks to help us understand the contributions to
the remarkable performance improvements as we can't separate the
environments to try the experiments of just the Netapps raid 5/remote pools
without the switched Ethernet or vice versa.
--------------snip
George Saridakis
gsaridakis@rsasecurity.com
Release Engineering Manager
RSA Security
20 Crosby Drive
Bedford MA 01730
Phone: 781-687-7561
Fax: 781-687-7019
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew.Mcdonagh@marconicomms.com
[mailto:Andrew.Mcdonagh@marconicomms.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:18 AM
To: cciug@Rational.Com
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
Fantastic...everyone's talking about remote vob storae...and NetApps....
just what I was about to ask some questions on!
So...my questions...
How easy are they intergrated with CC on an WinNT platform (ok, stop
laughing
;-)?
Do Netapps make much difference (performance or other, wise especially on
NT
platform)?
Are they worth the money (yeah I know - this is a'how long is a piece of
string'
type question...)?
We are just starting the process of upgrading our hardware, as the number of
users is increasing, and so performance is decreasing....
The server: ie. CC, Vob, license - everything but views and is used by 20
users
- another 20 users will come online during the year:
Dual Intel PII 400mhz
256 Ram
19Gb scsi 0,1
100Mb ethernet card
Our build are a nightmare....a release & debug build requires 3Gb disk space
on
the developers machine (where their view is) and can take upto 5 hours.....
cheers
Andy
"Masterson, David" <David.Masterson@kla-tencor.com> on 02/02/2000 18:27:00
To: "'Zayner, Scott'" <Scott.Zayner@wfg.com>,
"Masterson, David"
<David.Masterson@kla-tencor.com>, "'EXTERN Chapman
Roy (WA-Consultants; K5/ESQ1)'"
<Roy.Chapman@de.bosch.com>, "'cciug@rational.com'"
<cciug@Rational.Com>
cc: (bcc: Andrew Mcdonagh/MAIN/MC1)
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
VOB *database* storage...
You can put your pools onto a Filer, though. The Filer is just another NFS
device, so there is no difference between it and any other system that you
would put your remote pools on.
Truthfully, though, although Rational has not yet supported database storage
on a Filer, there are some brave souls that are using it that way without a
problem. Network Appliance and Rational really need to get together and do
complete testing to see if the Filer can be given full support by Rational
for ClearCase.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zayner, Scott [mailto:Scott.Zayner@wfg.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 10:14 AM
To: 'Masterson, David'; 'EXTERN Chapman Roy (WA-Consultants; K5/ESQ1)';
'cciug@rational.com'
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
Last I heard VOB storage is not supported on NetApp propriety filesystems...
please let me know other wise
-----Original Message-----
From: Masterson, David [mailto:David.Masterson@kla-tencor.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 12:07 PM
To: 'EXTERN Chapman Roy (WA-Consultants; K5/ESQ1)'; 'cciug@rational.com'
Subject: RE: [cciug] Remote pools
If you use a Network Appliance Filer on UNIX, then all of your pools are
stored remotely...
-----Original Message-----
From: EXTERN Chapman Roy (WA-Consultants; K5/ESQ1)
[mailto:Roy.Chapman@de.bosch.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 6:49 AM
To: 'cciug@rational.com'
Subject: [cciug] Remote pools
Quick question. It is recommended that the vob database is stored on a
seperate system to the cleartext pools (.c directory). Does the same rule
apply for the source pools (.s) ? Is there anyone out there with the source
pools stored remotely.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:22:58 EDT