<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: missing cache hits in Array Performance and Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985621#M939</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Tony,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When you perform sequential writes to a Nimble system (in this instance, a Storage vMotion) we automatically bypass writing data into cache, as we cannot have a good idea as to whether the data is hot or not. Therefore what the array does is after the data is on the system the array figures out what data is needed for cache and will pre-fetch copy blocks as and when required.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is why you're seeing lower cache hits as the data migrated to Nimble is cold, however what you should notice is this warm back up within a few minutes or so.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Nick_Dyer</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-12-18T14:47:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>missing cache hits</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985620#M938</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;i am doing 9 concurrent svmotion to a nimble volume from a emc cx and notive that cache hits a getting missed and going as low as 80%. any idea whats going on? &lt;IMG alt="Capture.JPG" class="jive-image image-1" src="https://community.hpe.com/legacyfs/online/2185_Capture.JPG" style="height: 465px; width: 620px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:53:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985620#M938</guid>
      <dc:creator>vmw9</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-18T06:53:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: missing cache hits</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985621#M939</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Tony,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When you perform sequential writes to a Nimble system (in this instance, a Storage vMotion) we automatically bypass writing data into cache, as we cannot have a good idea as to whether the data is hot or not. Therefore what the array does is after the data is on the system the array figures out what data is needed for cache and will pre-fetch copy blocks as and when required.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is why you're seeing lower cache hits as the data migrated to Nimble is cold, however what you should notice is this warm back up within a few minutes or so.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985621#M939</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nick_Dyer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-18T14:47:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: missing cache hits</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985622#M940</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;this could be solve with performance policy tuning :&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Enable&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;perfpolicy --edit &lt;EM&gt;name&lt;/EM&gt; --cache_policy aggressive&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Disable&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;perfpolicy --edit &lt;EM&gt;name&lt;/EM&gt; --cache_policy normal&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;please refer in documentation before ( nice document of BP Nimble + vmware)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dima&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 08:55:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985622#M940</guid>
      <dc:creator>marevutsky_dmit</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-28T08:55:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: missing cache hits</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985623#M941</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;TABLE border="1"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dmitry Marevutsky wrote:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;this could be solve with performance policy tuning :&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Enable&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;perfpolicy --edit &lt;EM&gt;name&lt;/EM&gt; --cache_policy aggressive&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Disable&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;perfpolicy --edit &lt;EM&gt;name&lt;/EM&gt; --cache_policy normal&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;please refer in documentation before ( nice document of BP Nimble + vmware)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dima&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd be very careful enabling Aggressive Caching on any array - in fact it should only be done under the guidance and/or instruction of Nimble Storage Support or Systems Engineers for specific workloads or requirements.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's hidden in the CLI for a reason; it's not a tool for everyday use and has the power to be detrimental to your storage array caching if not used wisely.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;In this case (standard Storage vMotions) Aggressive Caching should NOT be enabled.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:10:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/array-performance-and-data/missing-cache-hits/m-p/6985623#M941</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nick_Dyer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-28T19:10:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

