at_user
asked on
IBM DS3400 poor write performance
Hi.
I have a DS 3400 and DS 3300 with really poor performance in writings operations.
There is any tunnings changes to do?
I already look for the scripts and made some changes that improve the perfomance, but i´m not sure about what impact this may have to the integrity of the data.
I run the following script:
set logicaldrive mirrorEnabled=false;
Can anyone tell me about this script or share information about tunnings for this storage?
Thanks for all.
I have a DS 3400 and DS 3300 with really poor performance in writings operations.
There is any tunnings changes to do?
I already look for the scripts and made some changes that improve the perfomance, but i´m not sure about what impact this may have to the integrity of the data.
I run the following script:
set logicaldrive mirrorEnabled=false;
Can anyone tell me about this script or share information about tunnings for this storage?
Thanks for all.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
If it all possible, I would really recommend getting the second controller and having two HBAs in your server. Two dual port HBAs will allow you four separate fiber connections, with each HBA connected to each controller. In addition to great performance this gives you great redundancy. I know it really is a night and day difference because we had one controller in our DS3400 fail, and it dropped into the no-cache mode. Performance fell into the basement, but we did keep running with no loss of data.
I really think IBM should not even bother selling the DS3400 with one controller card.
I really think IBM should not even bother selling the DS3400 with one controller card.
I explained fully the meaning of this statement in the script and gave you a reference to the manual where it is explained in my comment 24258895
ASKER
Yes. its ok. sorry.
But this no solve the problem.
But this no solve the problem.
Comment from at_user when I objected to cancelatiou:
"Yes. its ok. sorry. But this no solve the problem."
Proper solution to the problem is to buy another controller, then the cache will be safely mirrored.
"Yes. its ok. sorry. But this no solve the problem."
Proper solution to the problem is to buy another controller, then the cache will be safely mirrored.
Ricin should also get cudos for this...
>I really think IBM should not even bother selling the DS3400 with one controller card.
There's a good picture of a pair of similar controllers at http://www.linkwaves.com/networkpics/IMG_7658.JPG, you can see the cache on the left is connected to the battery on the right through the board rather than by a wire, if the controller fails the contents of that cache are lost since the cache module isn't transportable and with the above setting you've already told the OS that the data has been committed to permanent media.
Sure would like a better look at that that blue label on the DIMM though, there might be plug on it to connect to a temporary cable for safe transport.
>I really think IBM should not even bother selling the DS3400 with one controller card.
There's a good picture of a pair of similar controllers at http://www.linkwaves.com/networkpics/IMG_7658.JPG, you can see the cache on the left is connected to the battery on the right through the board rather than by a wire, if the controller fails the contents of that cache are lost since the cache module isn't transportable and with the above setting you've already told the OS that the data has been committed to permanent media.
Sure would like a better look at that that blue label on the DIMM though, there might be plug on it to connect to a temporary cable for safe transport.
You can see his write cache is disabled (suspended) until he issues that command because he only has one controller.