Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:08:29 +0200
From:      Nikolay Denev <>
To:        Alexander Motin <>
Cc:        Gary Palmer <>, FreeBSD-Current <>, Dennis K?gel <>, "" <>
Subject:   Re: RFC: GEOM MULTIPATH rewrite
Message-ID:  <-2439788735531654851@unknownmsgid>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin <> wrote:

> On 01/20/12 10:09, Nikolay Denev wrote:
>> Another thing I've observed is that active/active probably only makes sense if you are accessing single LUN.
>> In my tests where I have 24 LUNS that form 4 vdevs in a single zpool, the highest performance was achieved
>> when I split the active paths among the controllers installed in the server importing the pool. (basically "gmultipath rotate $LUN" in rc.local for half of the paths)
>> Using active/active in this situation resulted in fluctuating performance.
> How big was fluctuation? Between speed of one and all paths?
> Several active/active devices without knowledge about each other with some probability will send part of requests via the same links, while ZFS itself already does some balancing between vdevs.
> --
> Alexander Motin

I will test in a bit and post results.

P.S.: Is there a way to enable/disable active-active on the fly? I'm
currently re-labeling to achieve that.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>