- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Data Protection and Retention
- >
- StoreEver Tape Storage
- >
- Re: Best practice for SCSI Addressing Convention f...
StoreEver Tape Storage
1748179
Members
4139
Online
108758
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
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
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- 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
04-11-2002 05:35 AM
04-11-2002 05:35 AM
It has been proposed here to give all LTO drives a SCSI ID of Zero, and place each on a different channel.
Given that we are also running an XP512 with LUNS shared down channels, how would this standard affect what we do? I can imagine there are limits of the number of SCSI Channels seen by HP-UX, and the bandwidth limit of SCSI, the number of bridges, etc.
Any sagely advice out there?
Thanks, Ian Dennison
Given that we are also running an XP512 with LUNS shared down channels, how would this standard affect what we do? I can imagine there are limits of the number of SCSI Channels seen by HP-UX, and the bandwidth limit of SCSI, the number of bridges, etc.
Any sagely advice out there?
Thanks, Ian Dennison
Building a dumber user
Solved! Go to Solution.
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-11-2002 06:53 AM
04-11-2002 06:53 AM
Solution
It is indeed being suggested that you use a separate SCSI HBA for each LTO drive due to the bandwidth required by each drive to keep it streaming. They will transfer data at 80MB/s burst rate (SCSI transfer) and an effective transfer rate of 30MB/s (assuming average 2:1 compression). Having more than one drive per bus increases the risk that drives fall out of streaming, which really hurts your performance.
Similiary, if you use a library with FC-to-SCSI bridges, each LTO drive should be on a dedicated SCSI channel on the bridge.
If you use 1GB FC infrastructure, not more than 2 drives should be on any FC link, as again you may introduce bandwidth bottlenecks.
As to SCSI ID 0, as each drive should have a dedicate bus, which ID you use for the drive should be irrelevant (only seen within the scope of that bus).
While there are some limits as to how many HBAs can be managed and/or seen by HP-UX, these limits are quite astronomical for the average data center server and you should not have to worry about it. The number of individual LUNs on a single server can exceed the 10s of thousands before you run into limitations of the kernel (kernel reconfiugation assumed).
There are more specific documents on performance suggestions for LTO drives. I'm going to try to find some and post the URLs later.
Similiary, if you use a library with FC-to-SCSI bridges, each LTO drive should be on a dedicated SCSI channel on the bridge.
If you use 1GB FC infrastructure, not more than 2 drives should be on any FC link, as again you may introduce bandwidth bottlenecks.
As to SCSI ID 0, as each drive should have a dedicate bus, which ID you use for the drive should be irrelevant (only seen within the scope of that bus).
While there are some limits as to how many HBAs can be managed and/or seen by HP-UX, these limits are quite astronomical for the average data center server and you should not have to worry about it. The number of individual LUNs on a single server can exceed the 10s of thousands before you run into limitations of the kernel (kernel reconfiugation assumed).
There are more specific documents on performance suggestions for LTO drives. I'm going to try to find some and post the URLs later.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP