On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin <m...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote: >> Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes sense >> if you are accessing single LUN. >> In my tests where I have 24 LUNS that form 4 vdevs in a single zpool, the >> highest performance was achieved >> when I split the active paths among the controllers installed in the server >> importing the pool. (basically "gmultipath rotate $LUN" in rc.local for half >> of the paths) >> Using active/active in this situation resulted in fluctuating performance. > > How big was fluctuation? Between speed of one and all paths? > > Several active/active devices without knowledge about each other with some > probability will send part of requests via the same links, while ZFS itself > already does some balancing between vdevs. > > -- > Alexander Motin
I will test in a bit and post results. P.S.: Is there a way to enable/disable active-active on the fly? I'm currently re-labeling to achieve that. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
