- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Disk Size to Performance
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
тАО01-24-2008 09:46 AM
тАО01-24-2008 09:46 AM
Disk Size to Performance
For Eg: do you recommend creating one large 2TB LUN or multiple smaller LUNs to be assigned to one server.
Thanks,
Sajeev
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-24-2008 10:14 AM
тАО01-24-2008 10:14 AM
Re: Disk Size to Performance
But you could get performance benefits from the operating system perspective, if you have more than one LUN, as cache/queues are asignes in a per LUN basis.
If where up to me, I would create 500 GB LUNs.
You should also consider your backup strategy.
If you can, try to put read-only information in a separate LUN, so you can backup this less frequently.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-24-2008 10:19 AM
тАО01-24-2008 10:19 AM
Re: Disk Size to Performance
I would recommend smaller size luns ( around 500Gb for your conf ) , because luns will be distributed among controller, more easy administration task, more easy backup administration, queu depth settings and more.
Hasan.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-24-2008 10:34 AM
тАО01-24-2008 10:34 AM
Re: Disk Size to Performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-24-2008 11:02 AM
тАО01-24-2008 11:02 AM
Re: Disk Size to Performance
The more the better. The bigger the fire hose the faster the water is delivered. Here are some areas that you can control to get faster delivery.
File system block size. Bigger blocks mean less work for the transfer.
Stripping across spindles and disks. The more spindles the less work to perform when read / writting.
HBA's. Get as many as possible on both server and disk array and round robin the HBA
s (* pri > alt alt > pri *) to balance evenly across the HBA's.
Raid 1 is faster than Raid 5. Put your database on raid 5 and your archive logs on raid 1.
Use one disk group in the disk array. Especially if you're limited by only two HBA controllers.