Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+Lousy\s+performance\s+on\s+new\s+6\.2\.1\.1\s+server\s+with\s+SAN\/FILEDEVCLASS\s+storage\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:36:18 -0400
Correct. This machine has 8-internal 600GB 15K drives. The OS and DB are on one pair of mirrored drives. The log and archlog share the rest of the internal drives in a raid-10 (I think) array plus le
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00257.html (36,007 bytes)

22. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:57:47 -0400
In reference to these recommendations, this is what one of my SAN folks said: If "increasing the queue depth for the individual disks" is something you can do on a CLARiiON, it's not something I'm fa
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00258.html (18,211 bytes)

23. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Remco Post <r.post AT PLCS DOT NL>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:23:38 +0200
for AIX: lsattr -l hdiskX -> look foor the queue_depth field values between 20 and 64 make sense, 128 in some extreme cases chdev -l hdiskX -a queue_depth=Y (but only if the vg is off-line) I found t
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00259.html (20,353 bytes)

24. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:38:35 -0400
This is RedHat Linux 5.5 From: Remco Post <r.post AT PLCS DOT NL> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU Date: 10/21/2010 01:24 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILE
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00260.html (20,882 bytes)

25. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: "Strand, Neil B." <NBStrand AT LEGGMASON DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:46 -0400
There should be queue depth settings for individual disks and for the HBA on the server - not on the Array. The sum of the Disk settings should not exceed the setting for the HBA. By EMC voodoo I mea
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00261.html (21,224 bytes)

26. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Remco Post <r.post AT PLCS DOT NL>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:45:57 +0200
Hi all, YMMV, I've really never played with these, but check /sys/block/sdX/queue/nr_requests and some other files in that dir ow BTW, google is your friend ;-) -- Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regar
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00262.html (22,462 bytes)

27. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:58:37 -0400
Thanks for the hint.......using Google is great (which I do), but if you don't have a clue what to look for........like a dictionary--you have to have some kind of clue/general idea how a word is spe
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00263.html (23,253 bytes)

28. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Remco Post <r.post AT PLCS DOT NL>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:05:42 +0200
you're so right. which sounds ok... if that's the queue depth, which I'm guessing it is. And 128 outstanding requests.... you'll never need more. I've recently increased the queue depth on the HBA wh
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00264.html (25,347 bytes)

29. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Richard Rhodes <rrhodes AT FIRSTENERGYCORP DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:35:20 -0400
What is the performance of the mirrored drives during migration? 2 mirrored drives (i/o performance of one drive unless both can be used for reads) may not be enough iops for the updates needed duri
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00265.html (15,139 bytes)

30. Re: [ADSM-L] Lousy performance on new 6.2.1.1 server with SAN/FILEDEVCLASS storage (score: 1)
Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:11:04 -0400
Not sure why you would think that SAN storage would be equal to or faster than internal 15K drives. I just ran multiple, single-thread stgpool volume define/formats of 200GB each. The server is compl
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-10/msg00270.html (16,264 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu