On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:07:02PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Sounds like they're sharing something they shouldn't be. I'm not real
> familiar with PCI-express. Aren't those the ones that use up to 16
> channels for I/O? Can you divide it to 8 and 8 for each PCI-express
> slot in the BIOS may
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 2:17 PM, Sean Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
two3-ware cards, one 9640SE-24 and one 9640SE-16
Sounds like they're sharing something they shouldn't be. I'm not real
familiar with PCI-express. Aren't those the ones that use up to 16
c
On Jan 17, 2008 2:17 PM, Sean Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a machine that serves as a fileserver and a database server. Our
> server hosts a raid array of 40 disk drives, attached to two3-ware cards,
> one 9640SE-24 and one 9640SE-16. We have noticed that activity on one
> controller
We have a machine that serves as a fileserver and a database server. Our
server hosts a raid array of 40 disk drives, attached to two3-ware cards,
one 9640SE-24 and one 9640SE-16. We have noticed that activity on one
controller blocks access on the second controller, not only for disk-IO but
also
On Jan 17, 2008 12:50 AM, Adrian Moisey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> >> Search this list for references to "checkpoints". If you run
> >> vmstat/iostat for a bit you should see bursts of disk activity at
> >> those times.
> >
> > The most straightforward way to prove or disprove that the slo
We had the same situation, and did two things
1. Reduce checkpoint timeout
2. Reduce quantity of data going into database (nice if it's possible!)
1 alone wasn't enough to eliminate the delays, but it did make each delay small
enough that the user interface was only minimally affected. Previo
