On Jan 20, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01/20/12 15:27, Nikolay Denev wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/20/12 14:13, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01/20/12 13:08, Nikolay Denev
On 01/20/12 15:27, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 01/20/12 14:13, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 01/20/12 13:08, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motinwrote:
On 01/20/12 10
On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01/20/12 14:13, Nikolay Denev wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> On 01/20/12 13:08, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrot
On 01/20/12 14:13, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 01/20/12 13:08, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote:
Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01/20/12 13:08, Nikolay Denev wrote:
>> On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote:
Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes
sense if you are acces
On 01/20/12 13:08, Nikolay Denev wrote:
On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote:
Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes sense if
you are accessing single LUN.
In my tests where I have 24 LUNS that form 4 vdevs in a
On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote:
>> Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes sense
>> if you are accessing single LUN.
>> In my tests where I have 24 LUNS that form 4 vdevs in a single zpool, the
>> highest pe
On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote:
Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes sense if
you are accessing single LUN.
In my tests where I have 24 LUNS that form 4 vdevs in a single zpool, the
highest performance was achieved
when I split the active paths among the
On Nov 14, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gary Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:24:06PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> On 01.11.2011 19:50, Dennis K?gel wrote:
>>> Not sure if replying on-list or off-list makes more sense...
>>
>> Replying on-list could share experience to other users.
>>
>>> A
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:24:06PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 01.11.2011 19:50, Dennis K?gel wrote:
> > Not sure if replying on-list or off-list makes more sense...
>
> Replying on-list could share experience to other users.
>
> > Anyway, some first impressions, on stable/9:
> >
> > The
On 10/31/11 22:10, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Attempt to fix some GEOM MULTIPATH issues made me almost rewrite it. So
> I would like to present my results and request for testing and feedback.
>
> The main changes:
> - Improved locking and destruction process to fix crashes in many cases.
> - Impr
On 01.11.2011 19:50, Dennis Kögel wrote:
> Not sure if replying on-list or off-list makes more sense...
Replying on-list could share experience to other users.
> Anyway, some first impressions, on stable/9:
>
> The lab environment here is a EMC VNX / Clariion SAN, which has two Storage
> Proces
Alexander Motin wrote this message on Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 15:05 +0200:
> > 2. In active/active mode do you do anything to handle possible
> >reordering? Ie. if you have overlapping writes and send both of them
> >using different paths, you cannot be sure that order will be
> >preserved
On 11/01/11 14:39, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:10:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Attempt to fix some GEOM MULTIPATH issues made me almost rewrite it. So
>> I would like to present my results and request for testing and feedback.
>>
>> The main changes:
>> - Impro
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:10:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Attempt to fix some GEOM MULTIPATH issues made me almost rewrite it. So
> I would like to present my results and request for testing and feedback.
>
> The main changes:
> - Improved locking and destruction process to fix
Hello,
First of all, many thanks. I am going to test your patch on 9.0-RC1, and
try to backport it to 8.2 (which is the main version I am currently
using at work, in the environment where I have a critical need for FC
multipath redundancy...)
Again, thanks for your efforts. I hope to be giving fe
Hi.
Attempt to fix some GEOM MULTIPATH issues made me almost rewrite it. So
I would like to present my results and request for testing and feedback.
The main changes:
- Improved locking and destruction process to fix crashes in many cases.
- Improved "automatic" configuration method to make it
17 matches
Mail list logo
