- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- FC60 attached to L3000
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2001 03:50 AM
тАО03-30-2001 03:50 AM
FC60 attached to L3000
We are moving from a K370 with 2FC10 disk modules to 2 L3000s connected to an FC60 with 6 SC10 attached. 50 36GB disks total.
5 6disk RAID5 LUNS are configured on the FC60.
We have to do a 5-6GB copy and a 19-20GB copy from LUN to LUN for a backup and data replication. Running the copy through the FC60 the copy speed is OK but other access is poor. bdf response from 1 to 20 mins. User login, checking quotas gets same response. Oracle startup is upto 10 mins.
K370 uses mirrored LVs on the FC10s, copy is slightly slower but response is 3-5 secs.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2001 05:05 AM
тАО03-30-2001 05:05 AM
Re: FC60 attached to L3000
How did you attach the disk compartments in detail ? What is SCSI, how many interfaces to the different storage devices ?
AN FC60 could be attached with two FC interfaces in the computer ( 100 MB/sec peak performance). The SC10 interfaces are Ultra SCSI2 ( 40MB /sec ) internal in the FC10.
If you attached the FC60 with only one interface ( according to teh max number of io-slots in a L3000 ), that is not enough. Pls let us have more details about your config.
Rgds
Alexander M. Ermes
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2001 07:04 AM
тАО03-30-2001 07:04 AM
Re: FC60 attached to L3000
The 2 L3000s are setup as a two node ServiceGuard cluster. So each machine has 2 PCI FC cards each connected to separate FC hubs. The FC60 has 2 controllers with 512 MB cache connected to separate hubs. The FC60 has 6 SCSI LVD interfaces each connected to a separate SC10 module.
Each 6 disk RAID5 LUN has one disk in each SC10 module. The LUNS are configured with 16MB segment size.
The throughput isn't the problem although the faster the better, its when there's a large amount of I/O. In this case the GB copies trying to get a response from the FC60 is poor. The FC10 modules are attached to the hubs. Using a couple of those disks for the copy the bdf response is down to 3-5secs. So it seems the JBODs are better than an all singing all raid level disk controller.
The L3000s have 4GB memory, running HPUX11 64bit.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-03-2001 06:14 AM
тАО04-03-2001 06:14 AM
Re: FC60 attached to L3000
It might be, that the hubs are the weak point.
What we have done here is a cross connection betwwen FC and computers. So one channel of each FC is connected directly to a computer.
FC-A line 1 to computer a
FC-A line 2 to computer b
FC-B line 1 to computer a
FC-B line 2 to computer b
. Perhaps that is an idea for you.
Rgds
Alexander M. Ermes
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-03-2001 07:23 AM
тАО04-03-2001 07:23 AM
Re: FC60 attached to L3000
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-06-2001 01:42 AM
тАО04-06-2001 01:42 AM
Re: FC60 attached to L3000
Had a look at which controllers are setup for which LUN. Changed them around with pvchange but it didn't seem to make much difference if both LUNs were using the same controller or they were using different ones.
Alexander,
Would be worth trying this but the FC10s are to be re-used so we need the FC hubs to connect all the kit up.
One test we were able to make was with a D370. I imported a couple of volume groups using FC60 LUNs onto the D370 and ran exactly the same copy. This was slower but the response time from the FC60 was fine.
HPRC ran cp with -S switch which apparently does not use buffer cache. Response from FC60 was immediate but the copy time increased from 25mins to over 2hours.
HP are now heavily involved so if they resolve it I'll post the fix. In the meantime thanks for your effort.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-20-2001 07:03 AM
тАО04-20-2001 07:03 AM
Re: FC60 attached to L3000
Because of disk space limitations we are still using RAID5 LUNs. We've created lvols using the -D switch to extent stripe across 2 and 3 LUNS. The copy time to copy 19GB of data to this lvol as opposed to copying to a lvol with just 1 LUN halved. 20 mins.
The bdf/sync response is 45secs but other response times seem OK.
Still doesn't address why the sync takes so long on an L-Class as opposed to a D-Class. I've reduced the buffer cache on the L-Class server to be less than that used on the D-Class but the response is still 4 times worse.