New install, performance unusable.

[dwright1542]

2x DL385, 192GB RAM, HW RAID, 8x600GB 15k SAS RAID6, Intel x520-DA2 10GBE for Access, Sync thru Direct cable. x520 10GBE thru Dell 8024F switch for iscsi

Software was installed a few weeks ago by SW, just testing performance now. It's completely unusable.

I know it's not the switch....I have other VLAN's running thru it that are fine.

both machines are showing the same issue on the SWind drive. The local, non SW drives are just fine.

Crystal shows:

Seq Q32T1 0.9MB/sec 21.15MB/sec
4k Q32T1 22.72MB/sec 12.17MB/sec
SEQ 0.290MB/sec 3.145MB/sec
4k 0.985MB/sec 0.347MB/sec

Even browsing the SW datastore in incredibly slow.


I've got downtime this weekend for moves, but SW can't help me until Monday, which will put me a week behind. Anyone have any ideas where I can start?

[dwright1542]

OK we figured out part of the issue. The SW tech who did the install did not turn on Jumbo Frames inside the 2012 machines. We flipped them on, and now the system is useable, although some serious tweaking needs to be done. Speeds are still poor.

The whole OVF install was really not smooth. I'd recommend fresh installs.

[anton (staff)]

It works as expected. OVF has a huge disclaimer.

DO NOT USE TO EVALUATE PERFORMACE

https://www.starwindsoftware.com/regist ... irtual-san

"For prompt deployment and functionality evaluation, StarWind Virtual SAN is available as a pre-configured VM. It allows you to install the software in a blink of an eye, without configuring everything manually. Choose VMware or Hyper-V in the form below to get the VM deployment option in the email.
Note: It’s not recommended to use this version to evaluate StarWind Virtual SAN performance."

Fresh install and manual assistance from StarWind techies is required to get performance results. We don't allow non-verified installs being put into production either.

OK we figured out part of the issue. The SW tech who did the install did not turn on Jumbo Frames inside the 2012 machines. We flipped them on, and now the system is useable, although some serious tweaking needs to be done. Speeds are still poor.

The whole OVF install was really not smooth. I'd recommend fresh installs.

[dwright1542]

It works as expected. OVF has a huge disclaimer.

DO NOT USE TO EVALUATE PERFORMACE

https://www.starwindsoftware.com/regist ... irtual-san

"For prompt deployment and functionality evaluation, StarWind Virtual SAN is available as a pre-configured VM. It allows you to install the software in a blink of an eye, without configuring everything manually. Choose VMware or Hyper-V in the form below to get the VM deployment option in the email.
Note: It’s not recommended to use this version to evaluate StarWind Virtual SAN performance."

Fresh install and manual assistance from StarWind techies is required to get performance results. We don't allow non-verified installs being put into production either.

OK we figured out part of the issue. The SW tech who did the install did not turn on Jumbo Frames inside the 2012 machines. We flipped them on, and now the system is useable, although some serious tweaking needs to be done. Speeds are still poor.

The whole OVF install was really not smooth. I'd recommend fresh installs.

If you read my post, one of your techs DID do the install. Not once was it mentioned that the OVF install was not the way to go. Not setting Jumbo Frames was clearly an oversight. And I did say that some tweaking needs to be done.

[anton (staff)]

If you read my post, one of your techs DID do the install. Not once was it mentioned that the OVF install was not the way to go. Not setting Jumbo Frames was clearly an oversight. And I did say that some tweaking needs to be done.

Did you actually tell to engineer it's production environment or did you ask to help with OVF install? Either way sorry about confusion and I'll bring in their supervisor to take a look. Thanks!

[Anatoly (staff)]

Hi! Supervisor is here!
OK, so looks like we figured everything out offline.
To get the better customer service, I`m gonna add checking the such network setting to the installation assistance check list. Usually we don`t do that since that is the client side configuration dependency, but hey, if we can do that, why can`t we, right?