SAN IOPS figure

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Recently we've been having high disk latency issue and wanted to benchmark one of our mount points on a preprod server to get an idea of how much IOPS, Throughput and latency our SAN is capable of. Infra Hardware is maintained by another team and we do not have any visibility what they do.



We used diskspd to run test with the below parameters
enter image description here



Results
enter image description here



As you can see, the max IOPS at 8K block size was around 5800.



So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number? Should we be aiming for more? What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's.



Adding more info based further questions from answers.



1) Why 8k block - I read that readahead uses higher block sizes, but when I analysed the bytes per read counter it was around 8K, suggesting SQL server is not able to do a lot of read aheads. Does fragmentation have a role here?



2) I did test with a smaller file size(2GB) and the IOPS and through put was much higher, suggesting that the path is not the bottleneck. Also did test with higher block size, getting a through put of around a terabyte.



Cheers






sql-server performance sql-server-2014 san







share|improve this question









New contributor




IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Recently we've been having high disk latency issue and wanted to benchmark one of our mount points on a preprod server to get an idea of how much IOPS, Throughput and latency our SAN is capable of. Infra Hardware is maintained by another team and we do not have any visibility what they do.



    We used diskspd to run test with the below parameters
    enter image description here



    Results
    enter image description here



    As you can see, the max IOPS at 8K block size was around 5800.



    So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number? Should we be aiming for more? What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's.



    Adding more info based further questions from answers.



    1) Why 8k block - I read that readahead uses higher block sizes, but when I analysed the bytes per read counter it was around 8K, suggesting SQL server is not able to do a lot of read aheads. Does fragmentation have a role here?



    2) I did test with a smaller file size(2GB) and the IOPS and through put was much higher, suggesting that the path is not the bottleneck. Also did test with higher block size, getting a through put of around a terabyte.



    Cheers






    sql-server performance sql-server-2014 san







    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Recently we've been having high disk latency issue and wanted to benchmark one of our mount points on a preprod server to get an idea of how much IOPS, Throughput and latency our SAN is capable of. Infra Hardware is maintained by another team and we do not have any visibility what they do.



      We used diskspd to run test with the below parameters
      enter image description here



      Results
      enter image description here



      As you can see, the max IOPS at 8K block size was around 5800.



      So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number? Should we be aiming for more? What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's.



      Adding more info based further questions from answers.



      1) Why 8k block - I read that readahead uses higher block sizes, but when I analysed the bytes per read counter it was around 8K, suggesting SQL server is not able to do a lot of read aheads. Does fragmentation have a role here?



      2) I did test with a smaller file size(2GB) and the IOPS and through put was much higher, suggesting that the path is not the bottleneck. Also did test with higher block size, getting a through put of around a terabyte.



      Cheers






      sql-server performance sql-server-2014 san







      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      Recently we've been having high disk latency issue and wanted to benchmark one of our mount points on a preprod server to get an idea of how much IOPS, Throughput and latency our SAN is capable of. Infra Hardware is maintained by another team and we do not have any visibility what they do.



      We used diskspd to run test with the below parameters
      enter image description here



      Results
      enter image description here



      As you can see, the max IOPS at 8K block size was around 5800.



      So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number? Should we be aiming for more? What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's.



      Adding more info based further questions from answers.



      1) Why 8k block - I read that readahead uses higher block sizes, but when I analysed the bytes per read counter it was around 8K, suggesting SQL server is not able to do a lot of read aheads. Does fragmentation have a role here?



      2) I did test with a smaller file size(2GB) and the IOPS and through put was much higher, suggesting that the path is not the bottleneck. Also did test with higher block size, getting a through put of around a terabyte.



      Cheers






      sql-server performance sql-server-2014 san




      sql-server performance sql-server-2014 san






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 25 mins ago





















      New contributor




      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 1 hour ago









      IOtester

      62




      62




      New contributor




      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      IOtester is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          So you ran diskspd tool with the following parameters:



          Discussing Parameters




          - b8K : 8 kB block size (default: 64K)
          - d60 : 60 seconds duration (default: 10s)
          - o32 : 32 outstanding I/O reqeusts per-target per-thread (default: 2 )
          - t8 : 8 threads per target
          - h : disable software and hardware caching (deprecated: Use -Sh instead)
          - r : random I/O alignment (would require a value)
          - w0 : 0 write percentage of reads
          - L : measure latency statistics
          - c200G : 200 GB file size


          So even though there are some defaults, you have decided to use different values. Question: Do you get different results when using the default values? I'm asking because SQL Server Read-Ahead varies from 64 kB right up to 1024 kB.



          Further questions to Consider



          I know what you're going through but your aren't giving us much to go with.



          • How is the storage attached? (2 GBit / 4 GBit / 8 GBit / 16 GBit)

          • What kinds of disk are in the SAN? (SSD / HDD / Hybrid / ...)

          • .... and possible other questions.

          Yes, you stated you have no interaction with the server team, but any information you provide is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's just a best guess.



          Answering Your Question(s).




          So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number?




          Possibly, but then again possibly not, that depends on your requirements and how your storage is configured. On an old IBM storage, we were constantly seeing only 210 MB/s throughput over a SVC with dual 2 GBit/s SFPs attached to the server hardware. We should have being seeing figures around 420 MB/s. After reconfiguring the switch ports we were nearer the second number, than the previous 210 MB/s.




          Should we be aiming for more?




          That depends on your requirements, your hardware and your configuration. Too may unknowns to give a definite answer.




          What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's




          Anywhere between 2'000 (entry level) and 25'000 (high-end; in 2015). IOPS don't seem to be the number to look at any longer according to some articles.



          Reference: Do IOPS Matter? – Simple Answer, No ()






          share|improve this answer





























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            IOPS and Latency are two independent numbers.



            5k IOPS seems decent, but the Latency of 44ms suggest (to me) that it is practically useless (when compared to a single disk's 5ms latency).



            When a single SATA drive can have a transfer rate of 100 MB/s, your 45 MB/s aggregated transfer rate suggests your SAN is overloaded.



            High end SANs will incorporate SSD drives which can cause the aggregated IOPs (as measured by the SAN) to measure in the millions. Your SAN team should be able to tell you what percentage of IOPs/Transfer Rate your host is getting.



            You definitely need to work with your SAN team to see if the limitation is due to the lack of SAN resources or a hardware/software problem.



            Fix HW/SW problems



            If you and the SAN team see that you are not getting all the power you are suppose to get, there could be something wrong with your setup.



            • Ensure you have updated drivers.

            • Ensure you have updated BIOS/firmware

              • mother board

              • Fibre Card

              • Fibre Switches

              • SAN device

              • in one case, we had to update all of the HDDs' firmware


            • Ensure Multipathing is configured correctly.

              • In one case of mine, the auto fail-over was causing performance problems






            share|improve this answer




















            • It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
              – TomTom
              35 mins ago










            Your Answer







            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "182"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );






            IOtester is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f218976%2fsan-iops-figure%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest

















            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote













            So you ran diskspd tool with the following parameters:



            Discussing Parameters




            - b8K : 8 kB block size (default: 64K)
            - d60 : 60 seconds duration (default: 10s)
            - o32 : 32 outstanding I/O reqeusts per-target per-thread (default: 2 )
            - t8 : 8 threads per target
            - h : disable software and hardware caching (deprecated: Use -Sh instead)
            - r : random I/O alignment (would require a value)
            - w0 : 0 write percentage of reads
            - L : measure latency statistics
            - c200G : 200 GB file size


            So even though there are some defaults, you have decided to use different values. Question: Do you get different results when using the default values? I'm asking because SQL Server Read-Ahead varies from 64 kB right up to 1024 kB.



            Further questions to Consider



            I know what you're going through but your aren't giving us much to go with.



            • How is the storage attached? (2 GBit / 4 GBit / 8 GBit / 16 GBit)

            • What kinds of disk are in the SAN? (SSD / HDD / Hybrid / ...)

            • .... and possible other questions.

            Yes, you stated you have no interaction with the server team, but any information you provide is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's just a best guess.



            Answering Your Question(s).




            So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number?




            Possibly, but then again possibly not, that depends on your requirements and how your storage is configured. On an old IBM storage, we were constantly seeing only 210 MB/s throughput over a SVC with dual 2 GBit/s SFPs attached to the server hardware. We should have being seeing figures around 420 MB/s. After reconfiguring the switch ports we were nearer the second number, than the previous 210 MB/s.




            Should we be aiming for more?




            That depends on your requirements, your hardware and your configuration. Too may unknowns to give a definite answer.




            What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's




            Anywhere between 2'000 (entry level) and 25'000 (high-end; in 2015). IOPS don't seem to be the number to look at any longer according to some articles.



            Reference: Do IOPS Matter? – Simple Answer, No ()






            share|improve this answer


























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              So you ran diskspd tool with the following parameters:



              Discussing Parameters




              - b8K : 8 kB block size (default: 64K)
              - d60 : 60 seconds duration (default: 10s)
              - o32 : 32 outstanding I/O reqeusts per-target per-thread (default: 2 )
              - t8 : 8 threads per target
              - h : disable software and hardware caching (deprecated: Use -Sh instead)
              - r : random I/O alignment (would require a value)
              - w0 : 0 write percentage of reads
              - L : measure latency statistics
              - c200G : 200 GB file size


              So even though there are some defaults, you have decided to use different values. Question: Do you get different results when using the default values? I'm asking because SQL Server Read-Ahead varies from 64 kB right up to 1024 kB.



              Further questions to Consider



              I know what you're going through but your aren't giving us much to go with.



              • How is the storage attached? (2 GBit / 4 GBit / 8 GBit / 16 GBit)

              • What kinds of disk are in the SAN? (SSD / HDD / Hybrid / ...)

              • .... and possible other questions.

              Yes, you stated you have no interaction with the server team, but any information you provide is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's just a best guess.



              Answering Your Question(s).




              So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number?




              Possibly, but then again possibly not, that depends on your requirements and how your storage is configured. On an old IBM storage, we were constantly seeing only 210 MB/s throughput over a SVC with dual 2 GBit/s SFPs attached to the server hardware. We should have being seeing figures around 420 MB/s. After reconfiguring the switch ports we were nearer the second number, than the previous 210 MB/s.




              Should we be aiming for more?




              That depends on your requirements, your hardware and your configuration. Too may unknowns to give a definite answer.




              What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's




              Anywhere between 2'000 (entry level) and 25'000 (high-end; in 2015). IOPS don't seem to be the number to look at any longer according to some articles.



              Reference: Do IOPS Matter? – Simple Answer, No ()






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                So you ran diskspd tool with the following parameters:



                Discussing Parameters




                - b8K : 8 kB block size (default: 64K)
                - d60 : 60 seconds duration (default: 10s)
                - o32 : 32 outstanding I/O reqeusts per-target per-thread (default: 2 )
                - t8 : 8 threads per target
                - h : disable software and hardware caching (deprecated: Use -Sh instead)
                - r : random I/O alignment (would require a value)
                - w0 : 0 write percentage of reads
                - L : measure latency statistics
                - c200G : 200 GB file size


                So even though there are some defaults, you have decided to use different values. Question: Do you get different results when using the default values? I'm asking because SQL Server Read-Ahead varies from 64 kB right up to 1024 kB.



                Further questions to Consider



                I know what you're going through but your aren't giving us much to go with.



                • How is the storage attached? (2 GBit / 4 GBit / 8 GBit / 16 GBit)

                • What kinds of disk are in the SAN? (SSD / HDD / Hybrid / ...)

                • .... and possible other questions.

                Yes, you stated you have no interaction with the server team, but any information you provide is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's just a best guess.



                Answering Your Question(s).




                So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number?




                Possibly, but then again possibly not, that depends on your requirements and how your storage is configured. On an old IBM storage, we were constantly seeing only 210 MB/s throughput over a SVC with dual 2 GBit/s SFPs attached to the server hardware. We should have being seeing figures around 420 MB/s. After reconfiguring the switch ports we were nearer the second number, than the previous 210 MB/s.




                Should we be aiming for more?




                That depends on your requirements, your hardware and your configuration. Too may unknowns to give a definite answer.




                What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's




                Anywhere between 2'000 (entry level) and 25'000 (high-end; in 2015). IOPS don't seem to be the number to look at any longer according to some articles.



                Reference: Do IOPS Matter? – Simple Answer, No ()






                share|improve this answer














                So you ran diskspd tool with the following parameters:



                Discussing Parameters




                - b8K : 8 kB block size (default: 64K)
                - d60 : 60 seconds duration (default: 10s)
                - o32 : 32 outstanding I/O reqeusts per-target per-thread (default: 2 )
                - t8 : 8 threads per target
                - h : disable software and hardware caching (deprecated: Use -Sh instead)
                - r : random I/O alignment (would require a value)
                - w0 : 0 write percentage of reads
                - L : measure latency statistics
                - c200G : 200 GB file size


                So even though there are some defaults, you have decided to use different values. Question: Do you get different results when using the default values? I'm asking because SQL Server Read-Ahead varies from 64 kB right up to 1024 kB.



                Further questions to Consider



                I know what you're going through but your aren't giving us much to go with.



                • How is the storage attached? (2 GBit / 4 GBit / 8 GBit / 16 GBit)

                • What kinds of disk are in the SAN? (SSD / HDD / Hybrid / ...)

                • .... and possible other questions.

                Yes, you stated you have no interaction with the server team, but any information you provide is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it's just a best guess.



                Answering Your Question(s).




                So my question is, for a SAN in a not so small IT shop, is that a good number?




                Possibly, but then again possibly not, that depends on your requirements and how your storage is configured. On an old IBM storage, we were constantly seeing only 210 MB/s throughput over a SVC with dual 2 GBit/s SFPs attached to the server hardware. We should have being seeing figures around 420 MB/s. After reconfiguring the switch ports we were nearer the second number, than the previous 210 MB/s.




                Should we be aiming for more?




                That depends on your requirements, your hardware and your configuration. Too may unknowns to give a definite answer.




                What is an average IOPS figure for an entry level and high end SAN's




                Anywhere between 2'000 (entry level) and 25'000 (high-end; in 2015). IOPS don't seem to be the number to look at any longer according to some articles.



                Reference: Do IOPS Matter? – Simple Answer, No ()







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 26 mins ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                hot2use

                7,55041951




                7,55041951






















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    IOPS and Latency are two independent numbers.



                    5k IOPS seems decent, but the Latency of 44ms suggest (to me) that it is practically useless (when compared to a single disk's 5ms latency).



                    When a single SATA drive can have a transfer rate of 100 MB/s, your 45 MB/s aggregated transfer rate suggests your SAN is overloaded.



                    High end SANs will incorporate SSD drives which can cause the aggregated IOPs (as measured by the SAN) to measure in the millions. Your SAN team should be able to tell you what percentage of IOPs/Transfer Rate your host is getting.



                    You definitely need to work with your SAN team to see if the limitation is due to the lack of SAN resources or a hardware/software problem.



                    Fix HW/SW problems



                    If you and the SAN team see that you are not getting all the power you are suppose to get, there could be something wrong with your setup.



                    • Ensure you have updated drivers.

                    • Ensure you have updated BIOS/firmware

                      • mother board

                      • Fibre Card

                      • Fibre Switches

                      • SAN device

                      • in one case, we had to update all of the HDDs' firmware


                    • Ensure Multipathing is configured correctly.

                      • In one case of mine, the auto fail-over was causing performance problems






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
                      – TomTom
                      35 mins ago














                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    IOPS and Latency are two independent numbers.



                    5k IOPS seems decent, but the Latency of 44ms suggest (to me) that it is practically useless (when compared to a single disk's 5ms latency).



                    When a single SATA drive can have a transfer rate of 100 MB/s, your 45 MB/s aggregated transfer rate suggests your SAN is overloaded.



                    High end SANs will incorporate SSD drives which can cause the aggregated IOPs (as measured by the SAN) to measure in the millions. Your SAN team should be able to tell you what percentage of IOPs/Transfer Rate your host is getting.



                    You definitely need to work with your SAN team to see if the limitation is due to the lack of SAN resources or a hardware/software problem.



                    Fix HW/SW problems



                    If you and the SAN team see that you are not getting all the power you are suppose to get, there could be something wrong with your setup.



                    • Ensure you have updated drivers.

                    • Ensure you have updated BIOS/firmware

                      • mother board

                      • Fibre Card

                      • Fibre Switches

                      • SAN device

                      • in one case, we had to update all of the HDDs' firmware


                    • Ensure Multipathing is configured correctly.

                      • In one case of mine, the auto fail-over was causing performance problems






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
                      – TomTom
                      35 mins ago












                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    IOPS and Latency are two independent numbers.



                    5k IOPS seems decent, but the Latency of 44ms suggest (to me) that it is practically useless (when compared to a single disk's 5ms latency).



                    When a single SATA drive can have a transfer rate of 100 MB/s, your 45 MB/s aggregated transfer rate suggests your SAN is overloaded.



                    High end SANs will incorporate SSD drives which can cause the aggregated IOPs (as measured by the SAN) to measure in the millions. Your SAN team should be able to tell you what percentage of IOPs/Transfer Rate your host is getting.



                    You definitely need to work with your SAN team to see if the limitation is due to the lack of SAN resources or a hardware/software problem.



                    Fix HW/SW problems



                    If you and the SAN team see that you are not getting all the power you are suppose to get, there could be something wrong with your setup.



                    • Ensure you have updated drivers.

                    • Ensure you have updated BIOS/firmware

                      • mother board

                      • Fibre Card

                      • Fibre Switches

                      • SAN device

                      • in one case, we had to update all of the HDDs' firmware


                    • Ensure Multipathing is configured correctly.

                      • In one case of mine, the auto fail-over was causing performance problems






                    share|improve this answer












                    IOPS and Latency are two independent numbers.



                    5k IOPS seems decent, but the Latency of 44ms suggest (to me) that it is practically useless (when compared to a single disk's 5ms latency).



                    When a single SATA drive can have a transfer rate of 100 MB/s, your 45 MB/s aggregated transfer rate suggests your SAN is overloaded.



                    High end SANs will incorporate SSD drives which can cause the aggregated IOPs (as measured by the SAN) to measure in the millions. Your SAN team should be able to tell you what percentage of IOPs/Transfer Rate your host is getting.



                    You definitely need to work with your SAN team to see if the limitation is due to the lack of SAN resources or a hardware/software problem.



                    Fix HW/SW problems



                    If you and the SAN team see that you are not getting all the power you are suppose to get, there could be something wrong with your setup.



                    • Ensure you have updated drivers.

                    • Ensure you have updated BIOS/firmware

                      • mother board

                      • Fibre Card

                      • Fibre Switches

                      • SAN device

                      • in one case, we had to update all of the HDDs' firmware


                    • Ensure Multipathing is configured correctly.

                      • In one case of mine, the auto fail-over was causing performance problems







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Michael Kutz

                    1,478117




                    1,478117











                    • It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
                      – TomTom
                      35 mins ago
















                    • It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
                      – TomTom
                      35 mins ago















                    It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
                    – TomTom
                    35 mins ago




                    It is even worse if you compare it to the latency of a ssd based setup. My own hyperconvergent cluster rarely goes over 1ms and that is mostly HDD (+ 2 LARGE ssd as cache per server).
                    – TomTom
                    35 mins ago










                    IOtester is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


















                    IOtester is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    IOtester is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                    IOtester is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f218976%2fsan-iops-figure%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest
































































                    Comments

                    Post a Comment

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What does second last employer means? [closed]

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                    Read more

                    Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
                    Read more

                    One-line joke

                    A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
                    Read more