<?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: 4-node P4300 poor performance in StoreVirtual Storage</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5681011#M5291</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;After re-reading the Link Aggregation section of my switches manual it appears that I cannot LAG the SPF fibre links, only ethernet ports. This would mean I'm not getting the 4Gb speed I thought I was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Either the two LAG'd ethernet ports on the stacked switch A &amp;amp; B are creating a 2Gb link to switch C, or the SPF ports are acting as a two single paths (via Spanning Tree) to switch C and I'm getting 1Gb.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'll make the 10Gb modules a priority and try LAGing some more ethernet ports for the time being.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for all your help :)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;J.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:33:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>fusiongroup</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-06-05T16:33:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>4-node P4300 poor performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5680011#M5285</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've recently set up a 4-node P4300 (2x 7.2 Starter SAN w/1Gb NICs) and I'm just not seeing the type of performance I would expect.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have set the cluster&amp;nbsp;up as Network RAID10 and&amp;nbsp;all the space assigned to a single RAID5 LUN with around 20 Hyper-V VMs on there.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Each server has the HP DSM installed with 3x 1Gb NICs connected to the iSCSI network and I've&amp;nbsp;set&amp;nbsp;MPIO to round robin.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I&amp;nbsp;shut down one of the VMs and copy it to the same location, I see transfer speeds of around 80MB/sec. In the performance monitor IOPS only ever hit around 700 and queue depth never goes over 14. I can see all 3 NICs in use in task manager usually hovering at around 30-60% utilization.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I also&amp;nbsp;have another SAN from a different vendor connected to the same server. This SAN also has 1x RAID5 LUN (over 10 disks) but only has 2x 1GB NICs and I get exactly the same copy speed of 80MB/sec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Surely I should be seeing faster speeds than this? Each node has 2x1GB NICs and each volume is over 16 disks, my IOPS seem low (from what I've been reading I should be able to hit&amp;nbsp; anywhere up to 3500)&amp;nbsp;and the queue isn't saturated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also if I try copying a large amount of data between the VMs I see speeds of 10-35MB/sec. Between the VMs on the other vendor's SAN I get the same 80MB/sec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can anyone give me any pointers on how to troubleshoot?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;James&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:06:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5680011#M5285</guid>
      <dc:creator>fusiongroup</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-06-04T23:06:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 4-node P4300 poor performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5680089#M5286</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;80MB is typical of a fully saturated 1gb link.&amp;nbsp; Sounds to me like there is a link agrogation issue.&amp;nbsp; Since you say you are seeing traffic on your three server nics I don't think the issue is on the server.&amp;nbsp; What are you using for bonding NICs on the SAN?&amp;nbsp; If you are using something like LACP that requires switch configuration as well you might have an issue with the configuration on the switch that is preventing the ports from bonding...&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so there is my vote...&amp;nbsp; switch config issue :)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:23:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5680089#M5286</guid>
      <dc:creator>oikjn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-06-05T01:23:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 4-node P4300 poor performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5680873#M5288</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It would seem like there is a 1Gb bottleneck now you point it out but I'm not sure where that could lie as I thought I'd configured plenty of bandwith.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently the bonds on all four nodes&amp;nbsp;are set to ALB so no need for 802.3ad on the switch&amp;nbsp;ports.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The&amp;nbsp;server&amp;nbsp;cluster active node&amp;nbsp;currently has 2x 1Gb NICs plugged into switch&amp;nbsp;A and 1x 1Gb&amp;nbsp;NIC plugged into switch B of a two switch stack.&amp;nbsp;SAN nodes 1 &amp;amp; 3 are connected into both switches in the stack. Both switches have a 1Gb fibre link and 1Gb ethernet link in a LAG group connected to switch C.&amp;nbsp;Switch C&amp;nbsp;has a server cluster passive&amp;nbsp;node connected to it with 3x 1GB&amp;nbsp;NICs,&amp;nbsp;plus all the NICs from SAN node 2 &amp;amp; 4 connected to it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In theory the bandwith should be 3Gb from the active server cluster node to SAN cluster nodes 1 &amp;amp; 3. There should be a 4GB uplink from the stacked switch A &amp;amp; B to switch C.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'll double check the LAG configuration though. If the you're right and the LAG isn't working properly then I guess there would be a 1Gb bottleneck to switch C. As the DSM wites to nodes&amp;nbsp;2 &amp;amp; 4 at the same time as it writes to 1 &amp;amp; 3 then it would make sense I would see the bottleneck.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will be able to test by moving a couple of VMs to the server passive cluster node and then initiating a copy from the alternate vendors SAN. This will force the data to go over the possibly incorrectly configured LAG and hopefully I should see a significant performance decrease if this is the case.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm currently waiting for some SPF+ modules to be delivered so that I can increase the fibre link speeds to 10Gb. With some server NIC re-assignment I could&amp;nbsp;also assign 6x NICs to iSCSI traffic. Hopefully this should eliminate any bottleneck issues when they go in.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many many thanks for the pointers. I'll now go and see if I can arrange some down-time!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;James.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:03:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5680873#M5288</guid>
      <dc:creator>fusiongroup</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-06-05T15:03:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 4-node P4300 poor performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5681011#M5291</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;After re-reading the Link Aggregation section of my switches manual it appears that I cannot LAG the SPF fibre links, only ethernet ports. This would mean I'm not getting the 4Gb speed I thought I was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Either the two LAG'd ethernet ports on the stacked switch A &amp;amp; B are creating a 2Gb link to switch C, or the SPF ports are acting as a two single paths (via Spanning Tree) to switch C and I'm getting 1Gb.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'll make the 10Gb modules a priority and try LAGing some more ethernet ports for the time being.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for all your help :)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;J.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:33:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5681011#M5291</guid>
      <dc:creator>fusiongroup</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-06-05T16:33:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 4-node P4300 poor performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5684587#M5307</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The bond wasn't configured correctly. I was attempting to bond two fibre ports and it just didn't like it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I created a new bond purely for ethernet ports and the speed has increased 6 fold.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;J.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:01:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5684587#M5307</guid>
      <dc:creator>fusiongroup</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-06-07T23:01:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 4-node P4300 poor performance</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5686601#M5314</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have only 1 LUN you should consider to have more. The iSCSI IO traffic for 1 lun is only on one node if you have 2 nodes on each site then you should have at least 2 luns. Then the IO load is on 2 of your nodes instead of only one.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:57:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/4-node-p4300-poor-performance/m-p/5686601#M5314</guid>
      <dc:creator>dagatle</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-06-11T11:57:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

