JDEdwards on NetApp references

Joel

Well Known Member
Hi,

Does anyone have information if there are any customers using NetApp storage solutions for JD Edwards. Any inputs are appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Joel
 
Sorry to bring this post back in focus, I'm sure there should be someone using Netapps with JD Edwards.
 
We are using it for a E1 client with a virtualized environment. Any specific question about it or just wondering if anyone was using them?
 
Sure .........I have tons of customers using NetApp, IBM, EMC, whatever - you name it.

Just why on earth would a reference matter? These days storage is storage - configure it right and it doesn't matter what vendor you choose.

What's your objective here? Just to know that people are using NetApp or do you need specific configurations?

Please give some more info about what you're REALLY looking for and your system configuration.


Colin
 
Well the main objective here is to get some sort of feedback about the product and find if there are any pain areas with using it with JD Edwards. Any disk IO issues ? How good is it with databases.

Netapps lists a number of features that other similar storage solutions do not have like replication, Better RAID protection with RAID Double Parity, virtualized storage etc. Any feedback on these additional features ?
 
The pain depends on the configuration.

Fibre Channel is faster than iSCSI (for now) but the question is do you need Fibre Channel performance?

Disk IO issues are directly related to the configuration. I have one client with 50+ sevrers on a NetApp iSCSI SAN with a single pathway (no redundancy) and of course performance isn't great.

Another client is on a similar NetApp properly configured and performance is stellar.

In general any SAN vendor will tel you to do one great big RAID set (1+0 ususally) and put everything all on the same array.

The real caveat to this recommendation is only if you have enough physical spindle in the array.

16 X 300 GB drives spread on one big RAID for 50+ servers can really such gas if you have high intensity applications.

However the same 50 servers over 100+ drives on one big array is typically extremely fast.

The database proponents will typically want individual drives with nothing sitting on the backside of the array (ie dedicated spindles just for the database). This can be faster than the "shared model" unless the shared model has a much highter number of spindles in the array.

In short all the SAN vendors have good solutions but poorly implemented or done on a very low budget can lead to downstream issues.

I sell/install IBM hardware so I can answer detailed questions about it if you have them.

NetApp - not so much but as per above a SAN is basically a SAN.
 
Joel,

We are actually in the process of some final testing on our NetApp SAN to move our production database to.

As far as basic disk I/O goes, it performs very close to our local disk (SAS Array). It has a better cache, but slightly increased latency due to the iSCSI configuration.

On the most part it looks viable, I actually just reached out earlier this morning on this subject to see if there are any caveats in this area.
 
Back
Top