1833757
Members
2749
Online
110063
Solutions
>> The test config (a similar machine),
- How similar? Completely identical (same model, same number and type of CPU, same memory, same FC cards etc...)
These jobs look like big sequential IO jobs - in my experience nothing much you might do with vxtunefs will change that - it would be helpful to see the mount options on the 2 servers:
mount -p
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
- How similar? Completely identical (same model, same number and type of CPU, same memory, same FC cards etc...)
These jobs look like big sequential IO jobs - in my experience nothing much you might do with vxtunefs will change that - it would be helpful to see the mount options on the 2 servers:
mount -p
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
The other thing to look at is the EVA...
It's possible all the ownership of LUNs has moved to just one controller (whcih would tally with about half the sequential IO performance you are seeing)
on 11.11/11.23 the EVA Vdisk controller preference should be left at â No Preferenceâ and the LVM Primary/Alternate paths should be set carefully to be balanced evenly across the two controllers and ports (because the UX IO will always be down one path only). (Iâ m assuming Securepath was not used). This way UX determines the balance of IO and handles failover/failback, and the EVA should match Vdisk ownership to the prevailing IO pattern.
in contrast, with 11iv3, the EVA Vdisk preferences should be set deliberately to a 50/50 mix of â Controller A failover/failbackâ and â Controller B failover/failbackâ and Multipathing should be set to RR with ALUA (the defaults). In this case the UX server respects the EVA preferences/balance.
SO you need to look at the EVA CommandView config for these LUNs and then compare to what you see from evainfo and "scsimgr lun_map" on the 11.31 host, to be sure that all your IO is using both EVA controllers (any given LUN will just use 1 controller, but you should have an even number of LUNs spread across both controllers.)
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
It's possible all the ownership of LUNs has moved to just one controller (whcih would tally with about half the sequential IO performance you are seeing)
on 11.11/11.23 the EVA Vdisk controller preference should be left at â No Preferenceâ and the LVM Primary/Alternate paths should be set carefully to be balanced evenly across the two controllers and ports (because the UX IO will always be down one path only). (Iâ m assuming Securepath was not used). This way UX determines the balance of IO and handles failover/failback, and the EVA should match Vdisk ownership to the prevailing IO pattern.
in contrast, with 11iv3, the EVA Vdisk preferences should be set deliberately to a 50/50 mix of â Controller A failover/failbackâ and â Controller B failover/failbackâ and Multipathing should be set to RR with ALUA (the defaults). In this case the UX server respects the EVA preferences/balance.
SO you need to look at the EVA CommandView config for these LUNs and then compare to what you see from evainfo and "scsimgr lun_map" on the 11.31 host, to be sure that all your IO is using both EVA controllers (any given LUN will just use 1 controller, but you should have an even number of LUNs spread across both controllers.)
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
So /exp is presumably the FS you are writing to... what about the FS you are reading _from_? How do you know that is still performing?
From what I can see here:
-first point is you are still using legacy DSFs in /dev/[r]/dsk - if you are migrated to 11.31, you should really start using the new agile DSFs in /dev/[r]disk/ - I don't think will have any impact on performance but is good practice
- its also not good practice to have VGs with only one LUN, as this absolutely guarantees you will only ever hit one controller on the EVA - you should always have at least 2 LUNs in a VG and then strip across those so you get the benefit of both controllers - but again, if that's how things were setup before its not the source of your problem
So as I said at the start of my post - checkout the config of the filesystems you are reading data off...
I am an HPE Employee
From what I can see here:
-first point is you are still using legacy DSFs in /dev/[r]/dsk - if you are migrated to 11.31, you should really start using the new agile DSFs in /dev/[r]disk/ - I don't think will have any impact on performance but is good practice
- its also not good practice to have VGs with only one LUN, as this absolutely guarantees you will only ever hit one controller on the EVA - you should always have at least 2 LUNs in a VG and then strip across those so you get the benefit of both controllers - but again, if that's how things were setup before its not the source of your problem
So as I said at the start of my post - checkout the config of the filesystems you are reading data off...
I am an HPE Employee
