On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:00:05PM +0000, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Bob Friesenhahn > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Peter Tribble wrote: > > > > > > May not be relevant, but still worth checking - I have a 2530 (which > > ought > > > to be that same only SAS instead of FC), and got fairly poor performance > > > at first. Things improved significantly when I got the LUNs properly > > > balanced across the controllers. > > > > What do you mean by "properly balanced across the controllers"? Are > > you using the multipath support in Solaris 10 or are you relying on > > ZFS to balance the I/O load? Do some disks have more affinity for a > > controller than the other? > > Each LUN is accessed through only one of the controllers (I presume the > 2540 works the same way as the 2530 and 61X0 arrays). The paths are > active/passive (if the active fails it will relocate to the other path). > When I set mine up the first time it allocated all the LUNs to controller B > and performance was terrible. I then manually transferred half the LUNs > to controller A and it started to fly.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/browse_frm/thread/59b43034602a7b7f/0b500afc4d62d434?lnk=st&q=#0b500afc4d62d434 -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
