On 5/1/06, Ryan Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am about to configure some dasd on our shark and I was considering using 3390-9 instead of 3390-3. Currently we have mostly 3390-3 with some 3390-9 at the end of the array in order to use all of the space. I was wondering if anyone knew of any issues using 3390-9 and some of the pro's and cons.
You're sure it's not the other way around? (with -9 as long as they fit, and small ones near the end?) Anyway, the concern we currently share here is that when you put data for *different* servers on the same 3390-9, they need to compete to do their I/O. With 3390-3 you have less subchannels per GB, so less concurrent I/Os per GB. If your Linux servers are big enough to fill a few 3390-9's then you probably would not benefit a lot from going to 3390-3. But if they're so small that they fit easily on a 3390-3, then you probably don't want to combine them on a single 3390-9. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc http://velocitysoftware.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
