The model 12 I have consists of 12 9Gig drives.
I created 5 LUNs at 8 Gig each leaving active spare option on.

On the 987/150 I was using 10 2Gig fast wide drives hanging off
one controller.

Btw...If you help me I will send you a box of Jack and Jill
Nutty Buddies :-)

In article <[log in to unmask]>,
  Gilles Schipper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What raid level is your 12h array executing at?
>
> If you have less than 50% spare permanent capacity, you are operating
at
> raid level 5 - which could explain partly why your peformance may be
worse
> than expected.
>
> Maintaining spare capacity of greater than 50% on your 12h will
result in
> the use of raid-level 1 - which typically performs much better in an
MPE/iX
> environment.
>
> Another thing to look at. Did you reduce the number of disk spindles
when
> converting from your 987? If so, by how many?
>
> There may well be other factors affecting the disappointing
performance of
> your 996.
>
> BTW, do we get any free ice cream if we can help?
>
> At 09:47 PM 2000-10-04 -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >      After upgrading from 987/150 to 996/400, performance
> >doesn't seem to be any better.  I went from a non-raid fast
> >wide jamaice box on the 987 to a model 12h array.  Is the model
> >12 known to be slow?  Shouldn't I see some improvement?  As far as
> >memory goes, I went from 1.5G to 3.5G. Anybody?
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Gilles Schipper
> GSA Inc.
> HP3000 & HP9000 System Administration Specialists
> 300 John Street, Box 87651   Thornhill, ON Canada L3T 7R4
> Voice: 905.889.3000     Fax: 905.889.3001
> Internet:  [log in to unmask]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.