On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Peter Tribble wrote: > > > > May not be relevant, but still worth checking - I have a 2530 (which ought > > to be that same only SAS instead of FC), and got fairly poor performance > > at first. Things improved significantly when I got the LUNs properly > > balanced across the controllers. > > What do you mean by "properly balanced across the controllers"? Are > you using the multipath support in Solaris 10 or are you relying on > ZFS to balance the I/O load? Do some disks have more affinity for a > controller than the other?
Each LUN is accessed through only one of the controllers (I presume the 2540 works the same way as the 2530 and 61X0 arrays). The paths are active/passive (if the active fails it will relocate to the other path). When I set mine up the first time it allocated all the LUNs to controller B and performance was terrible. I then manually transferred half the LUNs to controller A and it started to fly. I'm using SAS multipathing for failover and just get ZFS to dynamically stripe across the LUNs. Your figures show asymmetry, but that may just be a reflection of the setup where you just created a single raid-0 LUN which would only use one path. (I don't really understand any of this stuff. Too much fiddling around for my liking.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
