Dell/EMC AX150i

MikeTrike

MikeTrike

Fully [H]
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
16,903
Has anybody attempted to "upgrade" a Dell/EMC AX150i Storage Array?

It's a dual iSCSI controller system, I popped it open and looked at what it uses.

It uses a Socket 370 (PGA) Celeron CPU.
Intel 01, Philippines
1200/256/100/1.5
7630A567-0250
Celeron SL6C8

It also uses a stick of DDR ECC RAM
Qimonda 512MB DDR 333, CL2.5 ECC
PC2700-25330-B0
HYS72D64320HU-6-C
PN: 116007453, REV: A01

Since this is more or less "off the shelf" hardware, I was wondering if it would be any benefit to pop in say a PIII CPU and bump the 512MB ECC sticks to 1024MB ECC sticks. Assuming it will even take these without issue. Also assuming I can find a PIII that does not generate additional heat but have that extra CPU cache available.
 
Is it safe to assume that nobody has ever tried this? At least not here on the [H] forums.
 
I've never seen a socket 370 system that supported DDR memory. Can you tell what chipset it uses?
What kind of disks does it use?
I think it should support the later PIIIs since that celeron is the same Tualatin core, and any board that suports DDR should support 1GB of RAM.
 
rays87turbo said:
I've never seen a socket 370 system that supported DDR memory. Can you tell what chipset it uses?
What kind of disks does it use?
I think it should support the later PIIIs since that celeron is the same Tualatin core, and any board that suports DDR should support 1GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

Not sure on the chipset, it had a heatsink mounted over top of it.

They are custom controller boards for the Dell/EMC AX150i appliance. All the disks are SATA II 7200RPM Seagate with 16M cache.

You familiar enough with the Tualatin's to know which one might not generate much more or the same amount of heat as the celeron 1.2Ghz thats in it at 1.5v. I've seen 1.4GHz Tualatin P3's listed as 1.45v. if thats the case, can I safely assume that it might not generate additional heat? Come to think of it I should probably just dig around more on google. :p

I guess I'll just search around more, pick up the parts and take a dive. I'll be sure to post up my findings, including if it actually does anything for performance.
 
Update:

RAM is a no go, I'm going to assume its firmware/bios restricted on purpose. I'm not going to bother trying the CPU's. The box will have to do what it can with what it has.
 
It may just be more picky on the type of memory..

DDR and ECC are obvious, but there is also single vs double sided dimms.. I recall many of the early DDR boards didn't like double sided dimms, so some ram sticks of the same size would or wouldn't work depending on how it was arranged. (eg 8 chips of xMB vs 16 chips of x/2MB)
 
It's almost identical, brand/speed/voltage/layout. Difference being 1GB instead of 512MB modules.

I may mess with it more later, but it will do what it was intended to do either way. :)
 
If they firmware limited the ram, they probably firmware limited the cpu too, but I would try it anyway. :) IIRC all the Tualatins were pretty cool, so I don't think you'd get a noticeable heat difference.
SATA II + S370 + DDR 1? It sounds like this is some hacked together system more than of the shelf hardware. But Dell does that. And sells it as a "solution" for $100k.
 
Blue Fox said:
Ethernet? That should be really obvious.
Click to expand...

You are right, the AX150i uses ethernet, but the AX150 uses fibre channel HBA connections.

OP, you need to access the firmware and find out more on system specs.

This PDF may give you some info: http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pvaul/en/ax150_specs.pdf

Also, if you upgrade to a second CPU, make sure that it is the EXACT same as the other, otherwise you may run into compatibility trouble.


I've heard of a few PIII systems with DDR controllers, but this is a custom build from EMC, so I'm not surprised they went with DDR over legacy SDRAM.

We use the AX150 at my job, and even with a single CPU and default memory, it performs very well under load, and most of the time there are 50-100+ people accessing and using files on it at the same time.
 
Red Falcon said:
You are right, the AX150i uses ethernet, but the AX150 uses fibre channel HBA connections.

OP, you need to access the firmware and find out more on system specs.

This PDF may give you some info: http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pvaul/en/ax150_specs.pdf

Also, if you upgrade to a second CPU, make sure that it is the EXACT same as the other, otherwise you may run into compatibility trouble.


I've heard of a few PIII systems with DDR controllers, but this is a custom build from EMC, so I'm not surprised they went with DDR over legacy SDRAM.

We use the AX150 at my job, and even with a single CPU and default memory, it performs very well under load, and most of the time there are 50-100+ people accessing and using files on it at the same time.
Click to expand...

With the right software for the job you need much power. Hell most routers are 200-400mhz, and only a few are faster than that.
 
OmegaAvenger said:
With the right software for the job you need much power. Hell most routers are 200-400mhz, and only a few are faster than that.
Click to expand...

My router uses a Motorola RISC processor at 480MHz, but one CPU has got nothing to do with the other. But I'm not sure what routers have to do with this thread or SANs. :confused:

If the OP really needs that much power, then upgrading to a second CPU is critical since SANs are pure built-in hardware RAID, but it also depends on how many people are using the SAN. If it is only a few, then there is really no need. Like I said, we have over 50-100+ people using our SAN and it has only one CPU and the default RAM.
 
Red Falcon said:
My router uses a Motorola RISC processor at 480MHz, but one CPU has got nothing to do with the other. But I'm not sure what routers have to do with this thread or SANs. :confused:

If the OP really needs that much power, then upgrading to a second CPU is critical since SANs are pure built-in hardware RAID, but it also depends on how many people are using the SAN. If it is only a few, then there is really no need. Like I said, we have over 50-100+ people using our SAN and it has only one CPU and the default RAM.
Click to expand...


The point is that even though its a celeron thats all it needs. Im not comparing architectures. I'm giving an example of using just enough to get the job done without wasting resources.
 
OmegaAvenger said:
The point is that even though its a celeron thats all it needs. Im not comparing architectures. I'm giving an example of using just enough to get the job done without wasting resources.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes more sense. ;)
 
The documentation (which was written at hardware introduction) indicates a maximum drive size of 750GB. Surely any device that supports 750GB drives would also support up to 2TB drives? Had anyone verified this? The limit would be the EMC BIOS. They are notorious for doing stuff like that... remember the 520bps drives in the CX-series?

Thanks for your response.
 
Last edited:
It should support drives up to 2TB. You're presumably going to be out of luck trying to use anything that doesn't have the proper firmware however (I believe they use 520 byte sectors).
 
I'm not surprised they would do that, but I would like to know for sure. I have a line on several inexpensive AX150i chassis', but not inexpensive enough to just buy one for a test. I guess the worse case scenario is I'd be stuck with using 12 x 750GB and that's assuming I can use "standard" SATA drives.
 
assuming I can use "standard" SATA drives.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use desktop-class drives in a SAN, especially in an environment with other SANs, you are just asking for drive failure.

You should probably opt for nearline-class or at the very minimum, low-end-server-class drives.

Nearline are far more robust than desktop class and still use SATA-I/II/III for compatibility with most SANs and can handle the higher vibrations in just such an environment.

It should support drives up to 2TB.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure, a lot of these AX150's only utilize SATA-I controllers, which more often than not only support up to 750GB drives, depending on the controller.
Not to say there isn't a firmware update that would allow it, the SATA controller itself may be the limitation.
 
Last edited:
Red Falcon said:
I wouldn't use desktop-class drives in a SAN, especially in an environment with other SANs, you are just asking for drive failure.

You should probably opt for nearline-class or at the very minimum, low-end-server-class drives.

Nearline are far more robust than desktop class and still use SATA-I/II/III for compatibility with most SANs and can handle the higher vibrations in just such an environment.
Click to expand...
Already mentioned why nothing but drives with specific firmwares will work. Nothing you can buy from a retailer will work.
Red Falcon said:
I'm not so sure, a lot of these AX150's only utilize SATA-I controllers, which more often than not only support up to 750GB drives, depending on the controller.
Not to say there isn't a firmware update that would allow it, the SATA controller itself may be the limitation.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. The original SATA spec and some arbitrary 750gb limitation do not exist.
 
Blue Fox said:
Already mentioned why nothing but drives with specific firmwares will work. Nothing you can buy from a retailer will work.
Click to expand...

Good to know, but aren't the models from them already nearline-class drives?

Completely wrong. The original SATA spec and some arbitrary 750gb limitation do not exist.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I never stated the original SATA-I spec would hold back the drives max capacity. However, I did state that many of the old SATA-I controllers did not accept drives larger than 750GB. I have existing PCI SATA-I SiI cards/controllers that do not support drives larger than 750GB, even with firmware updates. However, some of the other SATA-I controllers do allow up to 2TB.

Like I said, it may depend on the controller or firmware that just so happens to be on the older SATA-I standard.

I have to agree with you though, I don't believe the SATA-I spec would limit the max capacity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top