Re: [U2] SAN?
Universe tends to make it's IO requests in 4K blocks, so you may want to make
sure you're not sharing spindles with things like sharepoint, where a typical
disk read request is more like 500K. You could end up with a 4K read waiting on
something 100 times larger as a regular thing. In AIX, it's a great idea to
increase RAM so that your cache hit rate is very high. With the lrud approach,
you can get very high %'s.
> From: r...@lynden.com
> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:12:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: [U2] SAN?
>
> Ty,
>
> We have run 2 good sized Solaris boxes and 1 medium one over paired 1Gb
> switches for a long time ~ 5-600 users, thousands of files. Bandwidth is not
> a problem. We do run a separate network for SAN access from the servers. As
> a practical matter, this works. We are upgrading the switches to 10Gb, but
> we are by no means saturated.
>
> Solaris supports an "llock" or local lock option on NFS mounts which
> circumvents some of the performance issues mentioned in Aaron's message. I
> think that there is a similar solution for Linux boxes.
>
> rw,bg,vers=3,proto=tcp,hard,intr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,llock
>
> This may not apply with your SAN. But if you can move some stuff over and
> test it, it is definitely worth the effort. Is NFS slower that a local disk?
> Likely so, right up until you have a disk failure, have to restore from tape
> instead of a snapshot, or fsck 500 Gigs. Is performance very good anyway?
> Yes. If a SAN can handle the average Microsoft product & output, U2's text
> based data cannot be all that difficult. ("hello world" in msword is worth 5
> groups in UV.) I apologize for the evangelical bent.
>
> There are doubtlessly architectural solutions other than NFS mounts, and some
> may be appropriate to your hardware and applications. NFS can be quite
> simple and surprisingly robust.
>
> -Rick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:50 AM
> To: 'U2 Users List'
> Subject: Re: [U2] SAN?
>
> Thanks.
>
> I'm aware of the advantages. I was more concerned with the IO requirements
> and how that would impact shared storage.
>
>
>
> Ty Haller
> SEFCU
> Lead Administrator - System Services
> thal...@sefcu.com
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-
> > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM
> > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org'
> > Subject: Re: [U2] SAN?
> >
> > Ty,
> >
> > We have used a NetApps SAN for a number of years with Solaris for Universe
> > data. (For Universe) there is the obvious tweak of allowing direct access
> > to
> > NFS, and depending on the type of SAN, there are probably some mount options
> > to optimize the throughput. It also helps to have a fair amount of memory
> > for
> > file caching, but it works great and provides many important advantages. A
> > couple of caveats: Do not allow access to snapshots through the same NFS
> > mount as the primary data. For NetApps, at least, the snapshot has the same
> > inode as the live data file, so the snapshot tree must be mounted as a
> > separate
> > device to avoid confusing (Universe) with conflicting file headers and
> > data. NFS
> > mounts work fine, as long as access to a particular directory tree is
> > managed
> > by a single data server.
> >
> > Oracle supports this same configuration, though I do not think that Rocket
> > has
> > much experience with it.
> >
> > Although difficult, it is possible to install Universe a SAN, and then run
> > it on a
> > VM, which means that you can snapshot almost all of the UV environment at
> > once!
> >
> > Rick Nuckolls
> > Lynden Inc
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-
> > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:15 AM
> > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org'
> > Subject: [U2] SAN?
> >
> > Morning,
> >
> > I am curious if anybody has UniData Accounts running off a Shared Enterprise
> > SAN?
> >
> > We currently have an Enterprise SAN for our VMware Environment and would
> > like to put a handful of UniData Test Accounts on it.
> >
>
Re: [U2] SAN?
Ty,
We have run 2 good sized Solaris boxes and 1 medium one over paired 1Gb
switches for a long time ~ 5-600 users, thousands of files. Bandwidth is not a
problem. We do run a separate network for SAN access from the servers. As a
practical matter, this works. We are upgrading the switches to 10Gb, but we
are by no means saturated.
Solaris supports an "llock" or local lock option on NFS mounts which
circumvents some of the performance issues mentioned in Aaron's message. I
think that there is a similar solution for Linux boxes.
rw,bg,vers=3,proto=tcp,hard,intr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,llock
This may not apply with your SAN. But if you can move some stuff over and test
it, it is definitely worth the effort. Is NFS slower that a local disk?
Likely so, right up until you have a disk failure, have to restore from tape
instead of a snapshot, or fsck 500 Gigs. Is performance very good anyway? Yes.
If a SAN can handle the average Microsoft product & output, U2's text based
data cannot be all that difficult. ("hello world" in msword is worth 5 groups
in UV.) I apologize for the evangelical bent.
There are doubtlessly architectural solutions other than NFS mounts, and some
may be appropriate to your hardware and applications. NFS can be quite simple
and surprisingly robust.
-Rick
-Original Message-
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:50 AM
To: 'U2 Users List'
Subject: Re: [U2] SAN?
Thanks.
I'm aware of the advantages. I was more concerned with the IO requirements and
how that would impact shared storage.
Ty Haller
SEFCU
Lead Administrator - System Services
thal...@sefcu.com
> -Original Message-
> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-
> boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM
> To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org'
> Subject: Re: [U2] SAN?
>
> Ty,
>
> We have used a NetApps SAN for a number of years with Solaris for Universe
> data. (For Universe) there is the obvious tweak of allowing direct access to
> NFS, and depending on the type of SAN, there are probably some mount options
> to optimize the throughput. It also helps to have a fair amount of memory for
> file caching, but it works great and provides many important advantages. A
> couple of caveats: Do not allow access to snapshots through the same NFS
> mount as the primary data. For NetApps, at least, the snapshot has the same
> inode as the live data file, so the snapshot tree must be mounted as a
> separate
> device to avoid confusing (Universe) with conflicting file headers and data.
> NFS
> mounts work fine, as long as access to a particular directory tree is managed
> by a single data server.
>
> Oracle supports this same configuration, though I do not think that Rocket has
> much experience with it.
>
> Although difficult, it is possible to install Universe a SAN, and then run it
> on a
> VM, which means that you can snapshot almost all of the UV environment at
> once!
>
> Rick Nuckolls
> Lynden Inc
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-
> boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:15 AM
> To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org'
> Subject: [U2] SAN?
>
> Morning,
>
> I am curious if anybody has UniData Accounts running off a Shared Enterprise
> SAN?
>
> We currently have an Enterprise SAN for our VMware Environment and would
> like to put a handful of UniData Test Accounts on it.
>
> We are using UniData 7.2 on an IBM P6 running AIX 6.1, the SAN would be 4GB
> Fiber Attached.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ty Haller | Lead Administrator - System Services | SEFCU | thal...@sefcu.com
> 700 Patroon Creek Blvd. Albany, NY 12206 | Phone: 518-464-5210 | Fax: 518-
> 464-5209
>
> This message may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole
> purpose of communication with the addressee. Dissemination or publication in
> any format is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error please notify SEFCU immediately.
>
> Help save a tree. Please print this e-mail only if it is truly necessary.
> Thank you.
> ___
> U2-Users mailing list
> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> ___
> U2-Users mailing list
> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
This message may contain confidential information and is intende
Re: [U2] SAN?
+1 to Aaron. Rocket Professional Services can assist you with this Ty. Aside from file opens, locking and the such, a lot of U2 based applications result in a higher frequency of smaller sized reads and writes than typical SANs are configured for. Moving a working database (any database, MV or not) to a SAN isn't something that should be undertaken unless you have someone who really knows what they are doing. A SAN's impact on I/O is much more complex than people generally realize and this can result in a horrible experience for applications that are highly sensitive to I/O properties such as latency and throughput. Regards, Dan McGrath Managing Director, U2 Servers Lab Rocket Software 4600 South Ulster Street · Suite 1100 · Denver, CO 80237 · USA T: +1 720 475 8098 · E: dmcgr...@rocketsoftware.com · W: u2.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Titus Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:05 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] SAN? With Universe, its a different IO pattern than most system administrators are familiar with, especially when you put an entire account on non-local storage. In particular things like the &PH& folder (from phantoms) and &COMO& files from traces. Files are frequently opened and closed, created and deleted. These operations are far more expensive on non-local storage. File locking is particularly problematic on NFS. The pattern may vary considerably based on what your application code actually does. I would highly recommend using analysis tools to take a DETAILED picture of what your IO pattern looks like today, and then show it to the vendor of your SAN and make sure its being tuned properly to handle it. When I say "detailed", what I mean is looking at all of the metrics like frequency of operations (open,close,write,delete), the latency of those operations, disk queue length, etc and not just the relative amount of read/write. The most common cause of poor disk performance is taking too simplistic of a view when setting requirements. This is especially true in "shared" environments. While "shared" often is cheaper and easier to maintain, this is frequently accompanied by decreased performance when the applications that are sharing the storage have substantially different IO patterns. *Aaron Titus* Senior Software Engineer F.W. Davison & Company, Inc. 508-747-7261 x245 ati...@fwdco.com On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Ty Haller wrote: > Thanks. > > I'm aware of the advantages. I was more concerned with the IO > requirements and how that would impact shared storage. > > > > Ty Haller > SEFCU > Lead Administrator - System Services > thal...@sefcu.com > > > -Original Message- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM > > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' > > Subject: Re: [U2] SAN? > > > > Ty, > > > > We have used a NetApps SAN for a number of years with Solaris for > Universe > > data. (For Universe) there is the obvious tweak of allowing direct > access to > > NFS, and depending on the type of SAN, there are probably some mount > options > > to optimize the throughput. It also helps to have a fair amount of > memory for > > file caching, but it works great and provides many important advantages. > A > > couple of caveats: Do not allow access to snapshots through the same > > NFS mount as the primary data. For NetApps, at least, the snapshot > > has the > same > > inode as the live data file, so the snapshot tree must be mounted as > > a > separate > > device to avoid confusing (Universe) with conflicting file headers > > and > data. NFS > > mounts work fine, as long as access to a particular directory tree > > is > managed > > by a single data server. > > > > Oracle supports this same configuration, though I do not think that > Rocket has > > much experience with it. > > > > Although difficult, it is possible to install Universe a SAN, and > > then > run it on a > > VM, which means that you can snapshot almost all of the UV > > environment at once! > > > > Rick Nuckolls > > Lynden Inc > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:15 AM > > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' > > Subject: [U2] SAN? > > >
Re: [U2] SAN?
With Universe, its a different IO pattern than most system administrators are familiar with, especially when you put an entire account on non-local storage. In particular things like the &PH& folder (from phantoms) and &COMO& files from traces. Files are frequently opened and closed, created and deleted. These operations are far more expensive on non-local storage. File locking is particularly problematic on NFS. The pattern may vary considerably based on what your application code actually does. I would highly recommend using analysis tools to take a DETAILED picture of what your IO pattern looks like today, and then show it to the vendor of your SAN and make sure its being tuned properly to handle it. When I say "detailed", what I mean is looking at all of the metrics like frequency of operations (open,close,write,delete), the latency of those operations, disk queue length, etc and not just the relative amount of read/write. The most common cause of poor disk performance is taking too simplistic of a view when setting requirements. This is especially true in "shared" environments. While "shared" often is cheaper and easier to maintain, this is frequently accompanied by decreased performance when the applications that are sharing the storage have substantially different IO patterns. *Aaron Titus* Senior Software Engineer F.W. Davison & Company, Inc. 508-747-7261 x245 ati...@fwdco.com On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Ty Haller wrote: > Thanks. > > I'm aware of the advantages. I was more concerned with the IO requirements > and how that would impact shared storage. > > > > Ty Haller > SEFCU > Lead Administrator - System Services > thal...@sefcu.com > > > -Original Message- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM > > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' > > Subject: Re: [U2] SAN? > > > > Ty, > > > > We have used a NetApps SAN for a number of years with Solaris for > Universe > > data. (For Universe) there is the obvious tweak of allowing direct > access to > > NFS, and depending on the type of SAN, there are probably some mount > options > > to optimize the throughput. It also helps to have a fair amount of > memory for > > file caching, but it works great and provides many important advantages. > A > > couple of caveats: Do not allow access to snapshots through the same NFS > > mount as the primary data. For NetApps, at least, the snapshot has the > same > > inode as the live data file, so the snapshot tree must be mounted as a > separate > > device to avoid confusing (Universe) with conflicting file headers and > data. NFS > > mounts work fine, as long as access to a particular directory tree is > managed > > by a single data server. > > > > Oracle supports this same configuration, though I do not think that > Rocket has > > much experience with it. > > > > Although difficult, it is possible to install Universe a SAN, and then > run it on a > > VM, which means that you can snapshot almost all of the UV environment at > > once! > > > > Rick Nuckolls > > Lynden Inc > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:15 AM > > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' > > Subject: [U2] SAN? > > > > Morning, > > > > I am curious if anybody has UniData Accounts running off a Shared > Enterprise > > SAN? > > > > We currently have an Enterprise SAN for our VMware Environment and would > > like to put a handful of UniData Test Accounts on it. > > > > We are using UniData 7.2 on an IBM P6 running AIX 6.1, the SAN would be > 4GB > > Fiber Attached. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Ty Haller | Lead Administrator - System Services | SEFCU | > thal...@sefcu.com > > 700 Patroon Creek Blvd. Albany, NY 12206 | Phone: 518-464-5210 | Fax: > 518- > > 464-5209 > > > > This message may contain confidential information and is intended for > the sole > > purpose of communication with the addressee. Dissemination or > publication in > > any format is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in > > error please notify SEFCU immediately. > > > > Help save a tree. Please print this e-mail only if it is truly > necessary. Thank you. > > ___
Re: [U2] SAN?
Thanks. I'm aware of the advantages. I was more concerned with the IO requirements and how that would impact shared storage. Ty Haller SEFCU Lead Administrator - System Services thal...@sefcu.com > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' > Subject: Re: [U2] SAN? > > Ty, > > We have used a NetApps SAN for a number of years with Solaris for Universe > data. (For Universe) there is the obvious tweak of allowing direct access to > NFS, and depending on the type of SAN, there are probably some mount options > to optimize the throughput. It also helps to have a fair amount of memory for > file caching, but it works great and provides many important advantages. A > couple of caveats: Do not allow access to snapshots through the same NFS > mount as the primary data. For NetApps, at least, the snapshot has the same > inode as the live data file, so the snapshot tree must be mounted as a > separate > device to avoid confusing (Universe) with conflicting file headers and data. > NFS > mounts work fine, as long as access to a particular directory tree is managed > by a single data server. > > Oracle supports this same configuration, though I do not think that Rocket has > much experience with it. > > Although difficult, it is possible to install Universe a SAN, and then run it > on a > VM, which means that you can snapshot almost all of the UV environment at > once! > > Rick Nuckolls > Lynden Inc > > > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:15 AM > To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' > Subject: [U2] SAN? > > Morning, > > I am curious if anybody has UniData Accounts running off a Shared Enterprise > SAN? > > We currently have an Enterprise SAN for our VMware Environment and would > like to put a handful of UniData Test Accounts on it. > > We are using UniData 7.2 on an IBM P6 running AIX 6.1, the SAN would be 4GB > Fiber Attached. > > > Thoughts? > > Ty Haller | Lead Administrator - System Services | SEFCU | thal...@sefcu.com > 700 Patroon Creek Blvd. Albany, NY 12206 | Phone: 518-464-5210 | Fax: 518- > 464-5209 > > This message may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole > purpose of communication with the addressee. Dissemination or publication in > any format is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in > error please notify SEFCU immediately. > > Help save a tree. Please print this e-mail only if it is truly necessary. > Thank you. > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This message may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole purpose of communication with the addressee. Dissemination or publication in any format is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify SEFCU immediately. Help save a tree. Please print this e-mail only if it is truly necessary. Thank you. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] SAN?
Ty, We have used a NetApps SAN for a number of years with Solaris for Universe data. (For Universe) there is the obvious tweak of allowing direct access to NFS, and depending on the type of SAN, there are probably some mount options to optimize the throughput. It also helps to have a fair amount of memory for file caching, but it works great and provides many important advantages. A couple of caveats: Do not allow access to snapshots through the same NFS mount as the primary data. For NetApps, at least, the snapshot has the same inode as the live data file, so the snapshot tree must be mounted as a separate device to avoid confusing (Universe) with conflicting file headers and data. NFS mounts work fine, as long as access to a particular directory tree is managed by a single data server. Oracle supports this same configuration, though I do not think that Rocket has much experience with it. Although difficult, it is possible to install Universe a SAN, and then run it on a VM, which means that you can snapshot almost all of the UV environment at once! Rick Nuckolls Lynden Inc -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ty Haller Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:15 AM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: [U2] SAN? Morning, I am curious if anybody has UniData Accounts running off a Shared Enterprise SAN? We currently have an Enterprise SAN for our VMware Environment and would like to put a handful of UniData Test Accounts on it. We are using UniData 7.2 on an IBM P6 running AIX 6.1, the SAN would be 4GB Fiber Attached. Thoughts? Ty Haller | Lead Administrator - System Services | SEFCU | thal...@sefcu.com 700 Patroon Creek Blvd. Albany, NY 12206 | Phone: 518-464-5210 | Fax: 518-464-5209 This message may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole purpose of communication with the addressee. Dissemination or publication in any format is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify SEFCU immediately. Help save a tree. Please print this e-mail only if it is truly necessary. Thank you. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] SAN?
Morning, I am curious if anybody has UniData Accounts running off a Shared Enterprise SAN? We currently have an Enterprise SAN for our VMware Environment and would like to put a handful of UniData Test Accounts on it. We are using UniData 7.2 on an IBM P6 running AIX 6.1, the SAN would be 4GB Fiber Attached. Thoughts? Ty Haller | Lead Administrator - System Services | SEFCU | thal...@sefcu.com 700 Patroon Creek Blvd. Albany, NY 12206 | Phone: 518-464-5210 | Fax: 518-464-5209 This message may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole purpose of communication with the addressee. Dissemination or publication in any format is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify SEFCU immediately. Help save a tree. Please print this e-mail only if it is truly necessary. Thank you. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
