Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:07:27 +0200
From:      Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>
To:        Carl Makin <carl@xena.IPAustralia.gov.au>, Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Dual Pathing to SCSI/FC devices.
Message-ID:  <v04220801b50784ae19fb@[195.238.20.81]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003291514240.91113-100000@newton.aipo.gov.au>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003291514240.91113-100000@newton.aipo.gov.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:24 PM +1000 2000/3/29, Carl Makin wrote:

>  There doesn't seem much point in using VINUM with an external RAID5 box
>  (although we use VINUM a lot on other machines).

	Speaking only for myself and the Comparex D1400 (Hitachi DF400) 
unit that I've been playing with so far, there is *very* good reason 
to use vinum on top of the external drive array.

	In particular, the unit has five SCSI busses internally, and when 
you configure LUNs you typically configure one or more rows of five 
disks per row.  However, when you configure more than one row for a 
LUN, it simply appends one row to the next, and doesn't stripe or 
RAID-5 across all disks simultaneously.  This really kills your 
performance.

	If I instead create one LUN for each row of disks (RAID-5), I can 
then stripe across them in software using vinum, and start 
approaching the levels of performance that I could get if I instead 
were using vinum exclusively and striping across twenty high-speed 
disks on five separate SCSI busses that were directly connected to 
the host.

	Unfortunately, this device doesn't have any concept of creating 
LUNs composed of other LUNs, so that I could keep all this 
bizarreness strictly within the cabinet.

>  The box to which I'm hooking this up has sufficient performance to handle
>  16 U2W SCSI links running hard.  Being able to utilise multiple paths
>  could be a big performance win.

	Theoretically, the box I'm connecting to can handle that level of 
performance, too.  However, I've had problems with it when I push it 
hard with just two Adaptec 2940U2W host adaptors, each connecting to 
one interface on separate device controllers.

	In theory, practice and theory are the same.  In practice, they 
are frequently radically different.

>  I'm getting a little beyond my depth in CAM internals here.  But it is
>  *very* interesting. :)

	I'm out of my depth in CAM SCSI internals, too but I'm also 
willing to provide whatever assistance I can, with regards to testing.

--
   These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
======================================================================
Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be>                || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV
Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124
Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49             || B-1140 Brussels
http://www.skynet.be                         || Belgium


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04220801b50784ae19fb>