Hi Please review:
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/storage-scale/5.0.3?topic=recommendations-operating-system-configuration-tuning Regards Yaron Daniel 94 Em Ha'Moshavot Rd [cid:[email protected]] Storage and Cloud Consultant Petach Tiqva, 49527 Technology Services IBM Technology Lifecycle Service Israel Phone: +972-3-916-5672 Fax: +972-3-916-5672 Mobile: +972-52-8395593 e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Webex: https://ibm.webex.com/meet/yard<webex:%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20https://ibm.webex.com/meet/yard> IBM Israel<webex:%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20https://ibm.webex.com/meet/yard%0dIBM%20Israel> From: gpfsug-discuss <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2024 21:30 To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] IBM Flashsystem 7300 HDD sequential write performance issue First thing I would check is that the GPFS block size is a multiple of a full RAID stripe. It’s been a while since I worked with SVC/FlashSystem performance, but this has been my main issue. So, 8+2p with the default 128KB «chunk size» would ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!12-vrJF3prOyMQWwFOsq4IVI2F5sW_rNmdbw10fUE-83G9qDoqHYRutCSd3L3Y0Et2YfQhxWnsuZhQfbT1dpCZ4bDtks0wi9Fpa3x3wHAwMy-No9_vCZEOUx$> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd First thing I would check is that the GPFS block size is a multiple of a full RAID stripe. It’s been a while since I worked with SVC/FlashSystem performance, but this has been my main issue. So, 8+2p with the default 128KB «chunk size» would work with 1 MB or larger block size. The other thing was that it’s important to disable prefetching (chsystem -cacheprefetch off), as it will always be prefetching the wrong data because of how GPFS scatters the blocks. And.. on linux side there’s some max device transfersize setting that has had huge impact on some systems.. But the exact setting escapes me right now.. HTH -jf tir. 23. jan. 2024 kl. 15:05 skrev Petr Plodík <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: Hi, we have GPFS cluster with two IBM FlashSystem 7300 systems with HD expansion and 80x 12TB HDD each (in DRAID 8+P+Q), 3 GPFS servers connected via 32G FC. We are doing performance tuning on sequential writes to HDDs and seeing suboptimal performance. After several tests, it turns out, that the bottleneck seems to be the single HDD write performance, which is below 40MB/s and one would expect at least 100MB/s. Does anyone have experiences with IBM flashsystem sequential write performance tuning or has these arrays in the infrastructure? We would really appreciate any help/explanation. Thank you! Petr Plodik M Computers s.r.o. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org<http://gpfsug.org> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org<http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org>
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org
