From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 20 11:08:35 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3AB1065670;
	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:08:35 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ndenev@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com
	[209.85.216.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3688FC1A;
	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:08:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qcse1 with SMTP id e1so337998qcs.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:08:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=FqNOiVXEjai+218PgP9JVrNzGwFtDdlsLvLolgirAOw=;
	b=bqeNzA8411NwzBL9J28lVxLMwxvtAe/QBqvIjNJKzglm7KwPkplTvzv5v3qAyCkB0D
	TFanT3DIkl5jxsmpo9tiBc2rxJlesMLi+Pc4M8X2aMaM1nom4AWwvML8ZpdJt+bbhJXM
	2rsOuPd/6aA5KfGjH3qSJbXLBbhgCdpG3/8Zw=
Received: by 10.229.136.82 with SMTP id q18mr11435710qct.139.1327057714417;
	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:08:34 -0800 (PST)
References: <4EAF00A6.5060903@FreeBSD.org>
	<05E0E64F-5EC4-425A-81E4-B6C35320608B@neveragain.de>
	<4EB05566.3060700@FreeBSD.org> <20111114210957.GA68559@in-addr.com>
	<059C17DB-3A7B-41AA-BF91-2F8EBAF17D01@gmail.com>
	<4F19474A.9020600@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F19474A.9020600@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:08:29 +0200
Message-ID: <-2439788735531654851@unknownmsgid>
To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>,
	FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
	Dennis K?gel <dk@neveragain.de>,
	"freebsd-geom@freebsd.org" <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: GEOM MULTIPATH rewrite
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:08:35 -0000

On 20.01.2012, at 12:51, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> 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.