Some of the comments in my previous post asked about $/IOPS and $/TB.
Since SPEC doesn’t require prices to be listed, I did my own analysis.
The NetApp numbers are simply 4x the existing 6240 result, which is what EMC did with their submission, they used 4x separate VNX systems and aggregated the result.
I used this clarifying analogy over at Nigel’s blog to explain why this makes sense before anyone yells “but this is not published”:
A storage system typically has some kind of bottleneck – cluster interconnect, number of drives, bandwidth to the controller, etc.
When you’re testing a single system, you’re ultimately hitting one of those bottlenecks.
If you’re testing multiple systems independent of each other, they do not share the bottlenecks (since they’re separate), and your performance will scale linearly as you add systems.
For example, if 1 truck can hold 10 tons of stuff, 4 like trucks will hold 40 tons of stuff, 10 trucks 100 tons, etc. There’s no limit.
Once you inject a limiting factor (“the trucks all have to fit on a bridge and the bridge can take this much load and it’s this big”) then you will have a limitation on how many trucks you can load and put on that bridge.
EMC tested 4 separate “trucks”. In that same way, I can add up the result of 4 separate NetApp “trucks”. Here are the results:
|Cost (approx. USD List)||6,000,000||5,000,000||NetApp is over 16% cheaper in absolute terms|
|SPEC SFS NFS IOPS||497,623||762,700||NetApp is 53% faster in absolute terms|
|Average Latency (ORT)||0.96||1.17||EMC offers a mere 18% less latency (with less NFS OPS) despite using only SSDs!|
|Space (TB)||60||343||NetApp offers 5.7 times more usable space|
|$/SPEC NFS IOPS||12.06||6.56||Netapp is 45.6% less expensive per SPEC NFS operation|
|$/TB||100,000||14,577||NetApp is less than 1/6 the price of EMC per TB|
|RAID||RAID5||RAID-DP||NetApp is thousands of times more reliable|
|Boxes needed to accomplish result||15 (4x separate VNX, each with 2 controllers, plus a total of 5x Celerra VG8 heads and 2 Control Stations)||8x unified controllers||NetApp is far less complex (the benefit of a truly unified architecture)|
Who can spot the better deal?
I added the latency in the chart, thanks to my buddy Mark Twomey for pointing it out.
You see, people needing enterprise NAS with that kind of performance usually need speed, plenty of space and high reliability. Not just one of the three. BTW, here’s a paper on relative RAID reliability.
NetApp provides all three, in spades, plus great value for money, a truly simple, flexible unified system, and efficiency.
Most customers want to see how a real configuration performs. I refer customers to our SPEC and SPC results constantly since quite frequently their desired configuration is very similar.
Which makes benchmarking realistic configurations actually useful – imagine that.
Maybe EMC needs to submit results with VNX the way they sell it to people, for example:
- A mix of SSD cache, SSD, high-speed SAS and high-capacity SAS
- A typical amount of space for a configuration that size
Then submit results.
Keep your existing result of course, but also show the people how what you actually sell them really performs.
I still don’t understand why this is such a hard concept.