![]() ![]() The storage also can be used as an iSCSI target for virtualized storage for the computer blades. #Hp proliant onboard administrator set ssl certificate windows#We also tested HP's StorageWorks SB600c All-in-One storage blade, which combines a supplied Windows Server Standard Edition to create network-attached-storage shares. We verified that 2:1 compression is standard. The HP StorageWorks Ultrium 440c tape blade stores data on LTO-2 cartridges, in increments of data starting at 400GB. Because the enclosure is designed to be a self-contained, mini- data center, the storage options - often missing from more data-center-focused blade servers - will be welcomed by small businesses and branches that don't have access to high-speed, over-the-net backup architectures. The drive arrays can be connected through the chassis or used as iSCSI targets from other internal or external host servers. Storage options include drive arrays and tape drives. HP should be commended for this new way of buying and configuring servers. It's a highly visual site, and specifics of each blade are selected by part type (computer blade, storage, tape and others) and by placing the selected components visually into the enclosure. ![]() As the options for components are staggering, HP has a Web site that lets customers select components via a Java/flash application. The c3000 blade frame and its components are fully modular and built to order. These numbers are somewhat hard to compare, but give an indication of good performance and power consumption. This compares with a recent test we did on IBM's blades, which at a faster clock rate (2.66GHz) executed more quickly at 289.9 microsec in the processor fork+execve test, but used 89 watts at peak during the same test, with the same operating system - Fedora Core Linux - in the same configuration (albeit a quad-core CPU, rather than a dual-core). The interesting part is that the AMD-based blade used 62 watts at peak during the test sequence, whereas the Intel blade needed 77 watts at peak. the BL460c's 425.2 microsec in the LMBench3 (our usual comparison test) processor fork+execve test, which tests the speed of context shifting and memory movement and allocation. The slightly faster BL465c turned in a faster time of 392.3 microseconds vs. ![]() The performance characteristics of these slower server blades matched their clock rates. Scoring Key: 5: Exceptional 4: Very good 3: Average 2: Below average 1: Consistently subpar ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |