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.