S
Seema_kanwal
Hello,
I need to discuss two scenarios:
We have an IBM Blade chasis which have failover clusetr pool and RAID5 configured.
We have an HP server which does not have cluster but also has RAID5 configured.
I was wandering if anyone would tell me which server would have better performnace in case same no of vms lets say 10 were running on them.
Would failover clusetr pool make performnace better?
What factors can impact the performance while both have same processor (Cluster/No Cluster does it matter)?
Long story short, would my x machine require more resources on HP as the processor on IBM that has more processor cache space?
While RAM & storage are same on boths servers,but it seems like IBM server performace is better?But what is it making faster with same resources except its processor has more cache?
To meet same performance it seems that I have to reserver 12 processors to x machine which would need 10 processors while it was on IBM Blade server.
I am bit confused.
Need help.
Continue reading...
I need to discuss two scenarios:
We have an IBM Blade chasis which have failover clusetr pool and RAID5 configured.
We have an HP server which does not have cluster but also has RAID5 configured.
I was wandering if anyone would tell me which server would have better performnace in case same no of vms lets say 10 were running on them.
Would failover clusetr pool make performnace better?
What factors can impact the performance while both have same processor (Cluster/No Cluster does it matter)?
Long story short, would my x machine require more resources on HP as the processor on IBM that has more processor cache space?
While RAM & storage are same on boths servers,but it seems like IBM server performace is better?But what is it making faster with same resources except its processor has more cache?
To meet same performance it seems that I have to reserver 12 processors to x machine which would need 10 processors while it was on IBM Blade server.
I am bit confused.
Need help.
Continue reading...