HP3000-L Archives

January 1996, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paul Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:59:05 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Jon wrote:
 
>Now, we realized we own some older equiptment that we dont want
>anymore and are considering trading the old equiptment for 2 or 4 more f/w
>4GB drives - obviously, to add ot the mirrored array. This would give us a
>maximum of 5 devices on each of our two f/w channels. Suddenly, our SSE
>claims that HP does not recommend more than *3* devices on a f/w channel -
>or shazam! there goes our performance. Does anyone have any insight on this?
 
There is no problem to put 5 devices on a f/w channel.  In fact, you don't
have to worry about the channel issue until you reach 9 or so.
 
However, I do concern that if you have enough disks to handle the I/O load!
Even though currently you have 6 disks for you production data, you really
just have 3 disks to spread the I/O load (since they are mirrored).  Make
sure all performance critical data are evenly spread across all disks.
 
If you know your average and peak I/O rate, you can figure out how many
disks are needed to support the demand.  3 sounds tight, I would feel more
comfortable with 5.  Good luck.
 
Paul Wang                          phone: (408) 988-7378
SolutionSoft Systems, Inc.         fax  : (408) 988-4777
                                   email: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2