Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)
  • Joe_Miner
    Joe_Miner
    Sign in to follow this  

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 6: Performance

    By: JohnStutsman

     

     

     

    01 20151216_PassMarkComparison

     

    Figure 1 – Passmark CPU Performance Index Comparison of ML10v2 to MicroServer and MediaSmart CPU’s. I used the available Average scores from Passmark as of 12/16/2015. The individual CPU Mark for my ML10v2 was 5,899; see: http://www.passmark.com/baselines/V8/display.php?id=52492748135 Forum member IAndrews found that the difference may be the result of HP and/or Windows power saving modes http://homeservershow.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10445-adding-4-5tb-hdds-to-my-ml10v2/?p=109833

     

     

     

    In Part 6 of Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time I post the results of some of my early performance tests in addition to the PassMark scores in Figure 16 of Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 5: Add Four 5TB HDDs. See also Figure 1 above.

     

     

     

    02 20151215_DriveC

     

    Figure 2 – Performance of Logical Drive 01 made of two Samsung 256GB 840 Pro SSDs in RAID0 on the B120i. This is my OS drive.

     

     

     

    In Figures 2 & 3 I ran performance tests on my Logical Drives 01 & 02 (see As-Built at the end of this article) using ATTO, Crystal Disk Mark, and HD Tune Pro.

     

     

     

    03 20151215_DriveD

     

    Figure 3 – Performance of Logical Drive 02 made of four Western Digital 5TB Enterprise drives in RAID10 on the B120i. This is my Data drive. The Target for the NASPT will be on this Drive.

     

     

     

    04 20151215_LanSpeedTest_CLEAN

     

    Figure 4 – I did a LAN Speed Test between my ML10v2 (Computer Name: USS Papago) to my Home Server (HAL-9000)

     

     

     

    After the LAN Speed Test I measured the performance of the ML10v2 (See As-Built at the end of this article) using the Intel NAS Performance Toolkit v1.7.1 (“NASPT”) Tests.

     

     

     

    Description of NAS Performance Toolkit (“NASPT”) Tests

     

    The NAS Performance Toolkit (“NASPT”) was developed and described by Tony Bock, Mason Cabot, Frank Hady, and Matthew Shopsin of the Storage Technologies Group, Intel Corporation, in the paper Measuring and Improving Single-User NAS Performance. (This is the same test that I’ve done previously on MicroServers, my MediaSmart Server, my home built Home Server and my Gen8 MicroServer.)

     

    Portions of their abstract states:

    NAS devices are increasingly entering the home and small business as centralized storage resources for large collections of documents, pictures, music and videos. Increasingly these devices are used for more than background tasks like backup. Newer interactive usages, like media access/creation, expose the performance of the NAS directly to the user. Unlike the enterprise NAS, the home and small business NAS will be judged primarily by single user performance as seen in user wait time.

    We introduce a new tool, the NAS Performance Toolkit (NASPT), uniquely built to measure the single user NAS Performance seen by a user of a mainstream personal computer. NASPT includes a wide range of workloads identified by our analysis of media, productivity and bulk data operations likely to drive single user NAS performance.

    We’ve made NASPT very easy to use and freely available. ….

    A number of tests are provided with the NASPT. Below is a listing of those tests used in this report.

    • HD Video Playback: Traced from a commonly available video playback application, this trace represents about ten minutes of 720p high definition MPEG-2 video playback. A single 1.3GB file is accessed sequentially with 256kB user level reads. As is true in many of the workloads the NAS itself sees smaller reads since the SMB client and file system break these 256kB requests into smaller requests.

    • HD Video Record: This trace represents recording roughly fifteen minutes of a broadcast 720p MPEG-2. A single 1.6GB file is written sequentially with 256kB access. The bit rate is somewhat lower than the playback test, they contain different video.
    • HD Video Play & Record: This test was algorithmically constructed from the above video playback and record traces. To combine we introduced a 50ms offset into the record stream then merged the two streams. The 1GB file represents four minutes twenty seconds of application run time. Because the two streams have differing bit rates and because of variation in original trace periodicity, there is not a strict alternation of accesses. About 20% of the transactions are sequential.
    • Two HD Video Playback Streams: Constructed from two copies of the above HD Video Playback test, this trace transfers 1.4GB of data representing two video streams played back for about six minutes. Again, sometimes one stream will issue two transactions in rapid succession so about 18% of the transactions are sequential.
    • Four HD Video Playback Streams: This workload is constructed from four copies of the video playback test. The 1.3GB trace represents about three minutes forty-five seconds of video playback for each stream. About 11% of the accesses are sequential.
    • Content Creation: This is a trace of commercially available video and photo editing software products executing a scripted set of operations to produce a video from a collection of different source materials. It contains a single very large file, apparently containing the video output, which is written in bits and pieces. About 11% of accesses within this file are sequential. There are many smaller files that are read and written more or less sequentially. Overall, about 40% of the accesses are issued sequentially. The test transfers 155MBs, 90% of transactions are writes. The median read size is 1300 bytes. The median write is 12kB. Transfers include a wide range of different sized accesses.
    • Office Productivity: Scripted sequences of typical workday operations from a commonly available office productivity suite make up this trace. This test is the largest of the collection, transferring 2.8GB of data evenly divided between reads and writes. Eighty percent of these accesses are logically sequential, scattered across six hundred files ranging from 12 bytes in length to over 200MB. The median read size is 2.2kB whereas the median write size is 1.8kB.
    • File Copy To NAS: This trace includes accesses executed when copying a 1.4GB file to a NAS. Data is written in 64kB sequential transactions.
    • File Copy From NAS: Identical to File Copy To NAS, but in the opposite direction. All transactions are sequential 64kB reads.
    • Directory Copy To NAS: This trace represents a bulk copy of a complex directory tree containing 2833 files, a transfer a large collection of files to the NAS. The directory used represented a typical installation of a commercially available office productivity suite. 247MBs is transferred with an average write size of 41.4kB. Only 52% of the writes are logically sequential as many files are small.
    • Directory Copy From NAS: Identical to File Copy To NAS, but in the opposite direction creating many read accesses.

     

     

    Specifications of Client Workstation that NASPT will operate from

     

    The Client Workstation that NASRT v1.7.1 will be operated from for these tests is specified as follows:

    • Hyper-V Client: Windows 7 Professional SP1, x86 – NOTE: this is the SAME Hyper-V Client that has operated on previous tests but has been moved to a different Hyper-V Server
    • 2 CPU Cores have been allocated to the Client
    • 2GB RAM (locked to 2GB with dynamic memory turned off).
    • Client VM and VHDX is the only client running on VHD Drive: a Logical Drive made of two 300GB VelociRaptor’s in RAID0
    • The Client Workstation is hosted on my HP ProLiant Gen8 MicroServer, Xeon E3-1265Lv2, with 16GB RAM ECC KVR1333D3E9SK2/16G, (computer name: The Machine) operating under Windows 10 Pro with Hyper-V enabled.
    • All VM’s on the Host have been shut down to provide the Client for this test exclusive access to the Virtual NIC bound to the 2nd NIC of the Gen8 MicroServer.

    The NIC’s of the Host and the NIC’s of the Target were connected to the same network switch: Netgear GS724T.

     

     

     

    Specifications of Target:

     

    The Target (Computer name: USS Papago) is a Share on Logical Drive 02 of the ML10v2 described in the following As-Built:

    • HP ProLiant ML10v2 Gen9

    • Xeon E3-1220v3
    • 32GB Unbuffered ECC RAM KVR16E11K4/32
    • Logical Drive 01: OS drive – 2 x Samsung 256GB 840 Pro SSDs in RAID0 on HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i RAID Controller – 2 x Icy Dock EZConvert Air – mounted in Slots 1 & 2 of 4 drive main cage – Ports 1 & 2 SATA III (6GB/s)
    • Logical Drive 02: Data drive – 4 x WD 5TB SE HDDs (WD5001F9YZ) in RAID10 on HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i RAID Controller – ports 3-6 SATA II (3GB/s) – two mounted in Slots 3 & 4 of 4 drive main cage – two mounted in 5.25” bays using 5.25” to 3.5” adaptor brackets (I used the existing SATA cable that had gone to the optical drive for 1 5.25” bay plus another 18” SATA cable I had in stock from previous projects for the 3.5” HDD in the other 5.25” bay)
    • OS: S2012R2

     

     

    05 20151216_NASPT_ML10v2

     

    Figure 5 – Results of 5 NASPT Runs and the Median Score Note: these Benchmarks are useful for Comparisons with My specific testing setup, network, and Client Workstation implementation and should not be considered absolute benchmarks for comparison against another person’s results

     

     

     

    06 20151216_NASPT_SummaryOfServers

     

    Figure 6 – Tabular Comparison of Median Scores for NASPT on my N40L & N54L MicroServers, my Home Server on a X58 board with a i7-930, my Gen8 MicroServer with a Xeon E3-1265Lv2, and my ProLiant ML10v2 with a Xeon E3-1220v3 Note: these Benchmarks are useful for Comparisons with My specific testing setup, network, and Client Workstation implementation and should not be considered absolute benchmarks for comparison against another person’s results

     

     

     

    07 20151216_NASPT_ThroughputComparison

     

    Figure 7 – Graphical Comparison of Median Scores for NASPT on my N40L & N54L MicroServers, my Home Server on a X58 board with a i7-930, my Gen8 MicroServer with a Xeon E3-1265Lv2, and my ProLiant ML10v2 with a Xeon E3-1220v3 Note: these Benchmarks are useful for Comparisons with My specific testing setup, network, and Client Workstation implementation and should not be considered absolute benchmarks for comparison against another person’s results

     

     

     

    08 20151216_NASPT_Comparison_N40L_BaseLine

     

    Figure 8 – Comparison of the devices in Figures 6 & 7 above normalized to the N40L MicroServer’s performance, i.e. the N40L’s performance was considered the baseline at 100% Note: these Benchmarks are useful for Comparisons with My specific testing setup, network, and Client Workstation implementation and should not be considered absolute benchmarks for comparison against another person’s results

     

     

     

    09 20151216_TempDuringNASPT

     

    Figure 9 – iLO4 – Temperature information with fans at 6% while the NSAPT was being performed

     

     

     

    10 WP_20151217_12_46_20_Pro_CROP2

     

    Figure 10 – Power usage at idle seems to fluctuate between approximately 52W and 65W.

     

     

     

    The ML10v2 doesn’t have the small form factor of the MicroServer but if a small form factor isn’t essential then I believe the ML10v2 offers a lot more “bang-for-the-buck” for the home enthusiast.

     

    As Figure 1 illustrates, the Xeon E3-1220v3 (LGA1150 socket) that is available in a stock HP ProLiant ML10v2 offers significant performance improvement for the home enthusiast over past stock CPU’s in MicroServer’s and MediaSmart Server’s. The 4 PCIe expansion slots of the ML10v2 also offers more flexibility for enthusiast projects.

     

    Interestingly from my perspective, I have a home server I built from my first i7 machine and the Xeon E3-1220v3 in the ML10v2 has a 24% performance advantage (PassMark 6,600 versus 5,184) over the i7-930 in my X58A-UD3H based home server!

     

    In conclusion, I really like the quality and performance of the ML10v2. Capable of being upgraded to 32GB of RAM and able to support 6 3.5” SATA drives right out of the box this machine has a lot of potential uses including home virtual lab, home server, and home NAS. My own plans in the immediate future is to try other OS’s and hardware on my ML10v2 with an eye down the road as either a home server/workstation or a home virtual lab.

     

    Please join us in the HomeServerShow Forums with any Questions or Comments.

     

     

     

    Reference:

     

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 1: Unboxing and Setting up iLO4 Advance http://homeservershow.com/setting-up-my-p-ilo4-advance.html

     

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 2: Installing my OS Drives and Running SPP http://homeservershow.com/setting-up-my-es-running-spp.html 

     

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 3: Using iLO4 to Install Server 2012R2 http://homeservershow.com/setting-up-my-server-2012r2.html 

     

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 4: Upgrade my RAM to 32GB http://homeservershow.com/setting-up-my-my-ram-to-32gb.html

     

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 5: Add Four 5TB HDDs http://homeservershow.com/setting-up-my-four-5tb-hdds.html

     

    Setting up my HP ProLiant ML10v2 for the first time, Part 6: Performance http://homeservershow.com/setting-up-my-6-performance.html

     

    HP ProLiant ML10v2 User Guide http://h20566.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?sp4ts.oid=7796450&docId=emr_na-c04622279&docLocale=en_US

     

    The PassMark Benchmark Scores on my build are at http://www.passmark.com/baselines/V8/display.php?id=52492748135

     

    NAS Performance Testing on my Gen8 MicroServer http://homeservershow.com/nas-performance-testing-on-my-gen8-microserver.html

     

    Blog Postings on NASPT http://homeservershow.com/?s=NASPT

     

    Blog Postings HP ProLiant ML10v2 http://homeservershow.com/?s=ml10v2

     

    My HP ProLiant ML10v2 PlayList:

     

     


    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    There are no comments to display.



    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

  • Our picks

    • ASUStor AS4004T 10Gbe NAS Review
      ASUStor AS4004T NAS - Short and Sweet Review
      • 0 replies
    • RESET Forums Black Friday Mega Thread
      Post your deals and links.  It's fun to come back and share what kind of loot you picked up! 
       
      Netgear Deals
       

       
       
       
       
      • 21 replies
    • OMG I'm watching HGTV off of my HDHomeRun Connect!
      I just subscribed to HD HomeRun Premium TV to see what it is all about.  Hello, I'm watching HGTV now!  Over ten years cutting the cord and this is a first.  All of those years have been with SiliconDust and the HDHR.  I had the older white ones with two coax inputs and I recall the move to the newer unit with only a single coax input as mind blowing!  I had two of the older ones so coax and splitters were a big mess.  Now, I have OTA and a good handful of cable channels.  I'm configuring it on Plex as I type this up.
       

       
       
      Get your hardware here - https://amzn.to/2BKxTkC
      Subscribe here - https://shop.silicondust.com/shop/product-category/premium-tv/
      • 5 replies
    • NetXMS - Alternative to Domotz
      PRTG vs. Domotz
      https://www.domotz.com/
       
      • 6 replies
    • Microsoft announced a new Surface device last night, the Surface Go.  The announcement felt forced as leaks were dropping all over the place so it looks like the Surface Team just said, "what the heck," post it! 
       
      It's a confusing addition to the family. Remember Surface 3?  The Go is a much improved device but I'll have to get my hands on it in order to fully judge it.  I loved the 3 and still own it with a dock.
       
      It starts at $399 which is great but the hardware is a bit limited at that price point.  It starts with the Pentium Gold 4415y processor. Here is a comparison to show you some characteristics versus the Core i3. It also starts at 4Gb of RAM and a 64Gb eMMC drive.  It's only 1.15 pounds and will have LTE options in the future.
       
      I've read a ton of posts on this device where there is "target market" confusion.  Read it for yourself straight from Microsoft's mouth. "Empower your workforce with the lightest, most compact Surface yet"

       
       
      Here is the announcement post - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/business/surface-go
       
      Most articles are comparing it to iPad's and Chromebooks and although i think it will be a good alternative to the Chromebook I don't think it is a direct compare to the iPad nor targeting it.  I think it is a build that came from direct feedback from the working market.  A light portable with pen ability that doesn't cost $1500 if it is dropped. Pretty simple.
       

       
      My biggest disappointment is the keyboard.  Yup, gotta add $99 if you don't want to type on glass.
       
      Will enthusiasts buy it? Couch PC? Reader by the bed?  This little Surface has a lot of merit on paper so we will see how it holds up when it ships on August 2nd.  Let me know down below if you are going to get one.
       
      Buy here - https://store.microsoft.com
       
      Short Link to share - https://fave.co/2KOUe4N
       
      • 8 replies

Project Fi now accepts iPhone!

Sign up with any phone now.



×