Hi You can enable QoS first to see the activity while on inf value to see the current values of usage and set the li is later on. Those limits are modificable online so even in case you have (not your case it seems) less activity times those can be increased for replication then and Lowe again on peak times.
— SENT FROM MOBILE DEVICE Ystävällisin terveisin / Kind regards / Saludos cordiales / Salutations Luis Bolinches Consultant IT Specialist Mobile Phone: +358503112585 https://www.youracclaim.com/user/luis-bolinches "If you always give you will always have" -- Anonymous > On 21 Aug 2018, at 1.21, [email protected] wrote: > > Yes the arrays are in different buildings. We want to spread the activity over more servers if possible but recognize the extra load that rebalancing would entail. The system is busy all the time. > > I have considered using QOS when we run policy migrations but haven’t yet because I don’t know what value to allow for throttling IOPS. We need to do weekly migrations off of 15k rpm pool onto 7.2k rpm pool, and previously I’ve just let it run at native speed. I’d like to know what other folks have used for QOS settings. > > I think we may leave things alone for now regarding the original question, rebalancing this pool. > > -- ddj > Dave Johnson > >> On Aug 20, 2018, at 6:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:02:05 -0400, "Frederick Stock" said: >> >>> Note you have two additional NSDs in the 33 failure group than you do in >>> the 23 failure group. You may want to change one of those NSDs in failure >>> group 33 to be in failure group 23 so you have equal storage space in both >>> failure groups. >> >> Keep in mind that the failure groups should be built up based on single points of failure. >> In other words, a failure group should consist of disks that will all stay up or all go down on >> the same failure (controller, network, whatever). >> >> Looking at the fact that you have 6 disks named 'dNN_george_33' and 8 named 'dNN_cit_33', >> it sounds very likely that they are in two different storage arrays, and you should make your >> failure groups so they don't span a storage array. In other words, taking a 'cit' disk >> and moving it into a 'george' failure group will Do The Wrong Thing, because if you do >> data replication, one copy can go onto a 'george' disk, and the other onto a 'cit' disk >> that's in the same array as the 'george' disk. If 'george' fails, you lose access to both >> replicas. >> _______________________________________________ >> gpfsug-discuss mailing list >> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org >> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss > Ellei edellä ole toisin mainittu: / Unless stated otherwise above: Oy IBM Finland Ab PL 265, 00101 Helsinki, Finland Business ID, Y-tunnus: 0195876-3 Registered in Finland
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
