Tag Archives: 3100

VNXe OE 2.4 and 2.5″ form factor disks

Once again I had a chance to play around with some shiny new hardware. And once again the hardware was VNXe 3300 but this time it was something that I hadn’t seen before: 2.5” form factor with 46 600GB 10k disks. If you have read about the new RAID configurations in OE  2.4.0 you might figure out what kind of configuration I have in my mind with this HW.

In this post I will go through some of the new features introduced in VNXe OE 2.4.0, do some configuration comparisons between 3.5” and 2.5” form factors and also between VNXe and VNX. Of course I had to do some performance testing as well with the new RAID configurations so I will introduce the results later in this post.

VNXe OE release notes

Customizable Dashboard

Along with the new OE came the ability to customize UI dashboard. The look of the Unisphere UI on new or upgraded VNXe is now similar to Unisphere Remote. You can customize the dashboard and also create new tabs and add desired view blocks to the tabs.

VNXe dashboard



Some of the operations are now added as background jobs and you don’t have to wait that the operation is finished. Steps of the operations are also more detailed when viewed from the jobs page. Number of active jobs is also shown next to the alerts on the status bar dependent on what page are you on.


New RAID configurations

Now this is one of the enhancements that I’ve been waiting for because VNXe can only utilize four RAID groups in a pool. So with the previous OE this would mean that datastore in 6+1 RAID 5 pool could only utilize 28 disks. Now with the 10+1 RAID 5 pool structure datastores can utilize as many as 44 disks. This also means increased max iops per datastore. 3.5” form factor 15k disk RAID 5 pool max iops is increased from ~4900 to ~7700 and with 2.5” form factor 10k disk RAID 5 pool max iops is increased from ~3500 to ~5500. Iops is not the only thing to be looked at. Size of the pool matters too and not to forget the rack space that the VNXe will use. While I was sizing the last VNXe that we ordered I made this comparison chart to compare the pool size, iops and rack space with different disk form factors in VNX and VNXe.


Interesting setup with the VNXe 3150 and 2.5” form factor disks is the 21TB and 5500 iops packed in 4U rack space. VNXe 3300 with same specs would take 5U space and VNX5300 would take 6U space. Of course the SP performance is a bit different between these arrays but so is the price.


I’ve already posted some performance test results from VNX 3100 and 3300 so I added those results to the charts for comparison. I’ve also ran some tests on VNX 5300 that I haven’t posted yet and also added those results on the charts.







There is a significant difference in the max throughput between 1G and 10G modules on VNXe. Then again the real life test results are quite similar.


These results reflect the performance of the environment that the tests were ran in. Results may vary depending on the hardware and how the environment is configured.

VNXe 3100 performance

Earlier this year I installed a VNXe 3100 and have now done some testing with it. I have already covered the VNXe 3300 performance in a couple of my previous posts: Hands-on with VNXe 3300 Part 6: Performance and VNXe 3300 performance follow up (EFDs and RR settings). The 3100 has fewer disks than the 3300, also less memory and only two I/O ports. So I wanted to see how the 3100 would perform compared to the 3300. I ran the same Iometer tests that I ran on the 3300. In this post I will compare those results to the ones that I introduced in the previous posts. The environment is a bit different so I will quickly describe that before presenting the results.

Test environment

  • EMC VNXe 3100 (21 600GB SAS Drives)
  • Dell PE 2900 server
  • HP ProCurve 2510G
  • Two 1Gb iSCSI NICs
  • ESXi 4.1U1 / ESXi 5.0
  • Virtual Win 2008 R2 (1vCPU and 4GB memory)

Test results

I ran the tests on both ESXi 4.1 and ESXi 5.0 but the iSCSI results were very similar so I used the average of both. NFS results had some differences so I will present the results for both 4 and 5 separately. I also did the tests with and without LAG and also when changing the default RR settings. VNXe was configured with one 20 disk pool with 100GB datastore provisioned to ESXi servers. The tests were run on 20GB virtual disk on the 100GB datastore.

[update] My main focus in these tests has been on iSCSI because that is what we are planning to use. I only ran quick tests with the generic NFS and not with the one that is configured under Storage – VMware. After Paul’s comment I ran a couple of test on the “VMware NFS” and I then added “ESXi 4 VMware NFS” to the test results:


With default settings the performance of the 3300 and the 3100 is fairly similar. The 3300 gives better throughput when the default IO operation limit is set from the default 1000 to 1. The differences on the physical configurations might also have an effect on this. With random workload the performance is similar even when the default settings are changed. Of course the real difference would be seen when both would be under heavy load. During the tests there was only the test server running on the VNXes.

On the NFS I didn’t have comparable results from the 3300. I ran different tests on the 3300 and those results weren’t good either. The odd thing is that ESXi 4 and ESXi 5 gave quite different results when running the tests on NFS.

Looking these and the previous results I would still be sticking with iSCSI on VNXe. What comes to the performance of the 3100 it is surprisingly close to its bigger sibling 3300.

[update] Looking at the new test results NFS is performing as well as iSCSI. With the modified RR settings iSCSI gets better max throughput but then again with random workloads NFS seems to perform better. So the type of NFS storage provisioned to the ESX hosts makes a difference. Now comes the question NFS or iSCSI? Performance vice either one is a good choice. But which one suits your environment better?


These results reflect the performance of the environment that the tests were ran in. Results may vary depending on the hardware and how the environment is configured.

%d bloggers like this: