Bart, My use of the term partitions is terrible abuse ofcourse. I mean the CHS layout ofcourse.
I've a semi-production test setup where I will apply these changes and see what happens. The setup is far from ideal because if have some cheap-ass 3com switches which don't support jumbo frames or 802.3ad dynamic link aggregation. However, storage is already generating some load without link saturation so we should see something happen. I'll post my findings in about 2 weeks. Have a nice holiday! Eric On Dec 22, 2:34 pm, "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanass...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Eric <ericvanblokl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for definitive answer and the link to a great thread. I need > > one more: > > > I have to set the heads and cylinders on the disk partitions of the > > virtualized servers. Now I assume I also have to set heads and > > cylinders on the raid partions, exported by the targets. Is this > > assumption correct? > > I'm not 100% sure, but the CHS layout of the disk itself (not the > partitions) might be the layout you have to tune. If I remember > correctly, IET performance is suboptimal if partition boundaries are > not aligned with page boundaries. Or: partition boundaries should be a > multiple of 4096 KB. > > Bart. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-iscsi" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---