- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Ac...
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
тАО11-28-2007 09:29 PM
тАО11-28-2007 09:29 PM
Hi All,
We have some systems that uses Secure Path (Active-Passive) 3.0F SP2 to access an EVA 3000 with VCS 3.110. I'm investigating whether there is really performance benefit if we move to EVA 3000 vcs 4.x to make it an Active-Active disk array. This will require Secure Path to be reloaded to support an Active-Active disk array and then enable Load Balancing. I've been hearing that there's performance penalty on read when a LUN is accessed through the secondary controller.
Many Thanks,
Charlie
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-29-2007 09:01 AM
тАО11-29-2007 09:01 AM
SolutionWhen the request comes from the other controller, it passes the request to the owner controller, whick gets the data and passes it back.
If more than 60% of the requests come from the non-owner controller, then the vdisk changes the ownership to that controller.
Securepath can be configured to use all available paths, sending data though the path with the shortest queue or the lowest service time for example.
And finally, the EVA3000 is not really optimized to work in Active/Active mode, it has only one link between controllers and it's in a shared bus with other ports.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-29-2007 09:24 PM
тАО11-29-2007 09:24 PM
Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Active-Active and EVA3000 vcs 4.x
Many thanks for your input.
It seems like for Secure Path with EVA3000, it is better to use the "Low Service Time" for its Load Balancing feature.
This also means that if we remove Secure Path and just use the LVM PV Links method for coarse load balancing, this won't work very well.
Another reason why we are force to upgrade to VCS 4.x is that we are moving to HP-UX 11iv3. 11iv3 does not support Active-Passive disk arrays anymore.
Thanks,
Charlie
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-29-2007 09:52 PM
тАО11-29-2007 09:52 PM
Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Active-Active and EVA3000 vcs 4.x
Hi vcespon,
Did you have performance improvement when you upgraded your EVA 3000 to vcs 4.x?
Thanks,
Charlie
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-29-2007 10:33 PM
тАО11-29-2007 10:33 PM
Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Active-Active and EVA3000 vcs 4.x
The native multipathing already built-in in the OS denies the use of secure path.
Hope this helps!
Regards
Torsten.
__________________________________________________
There are only 10 types of people in the world -
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
__________________________________________________
No support by private messages. Please ask the forum!
If you feel this was helpful please click the KUDOS! thumb below!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-29-2007 10:39 PM
тАО11-29-2007 10:39 PM
Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Active-Active and EVA3000 vcs 4.x
First of all we are investigating for the possibility of performance improvement if we move to vcs 4.x which makes the EVA3K an Active-Active (which require Secure Path/Autopath). We will still use 11.23 in this case. Do you think there will be performance improvement?
thanks,
Charlie
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-29-2007 10:43 PM
тАО11-29-2007 10:43 PM
Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Active-Active and EVA3000 vcs 4.x
See also the autoswitch option in pvchange man page:
http://docs.hp.com/en/B2355-60105/pvchange.1M.html
Hope this helps!
Regards
Torsten.
__________________________________________________
There are only 10 types of people in the world -
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
__________________________________________________
No support by private messages. Please ask the forum!
If you feel this was helpful please click the KUDOS! thumb below!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-30-2007 12:03 AM
тАО11-30-2007 12:03 AM
Re: Is there performance benefit in Secure Path Active-Active and EVA3000 vcs 4.x
If we use LVM PV links, the -S autoswitch option set to "y" is the default.
---------From the man page ------
-S autoswitch This option specifies the autoswitch behavior for multiported physical volumes accessed via multiple paths. It has no effect for physical volumes without alternate paths. autoswitch option may be set to one of the following values:
y LVM is directed to automatically switch from the path it is using whenever a better path to the physical volume is available. LVM will switch paths when a better path recovers (after it had failed earlier), or if the current path fails and another path is available. This is the default.
n LVM is directed to automatically switch to using the best available path only when the path currently in use is unavailable. LVM will continue using a specific path for the physical volume as long as it works, regardless of whether another better path recovers from a failure.
--------------end ----------------
Since this is the default, do we still need to manually do this for all the disks?
Many Thanks,
charlie