Re: Bit off topic : It should go faster than this...

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<3ee9944c$0$5973$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Ralph" <rlro99_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e2c49cae.0306130048.282a99f4_at_posting.google.com...
>
>
> > Each of the 5300 controllers is connected to two enclosures by four
> > channels. So all the '0' side of the array is in once shelf connected
> > by two channels, the '1' side of the array is connected to the same
> > controller using the other two channels.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it. Is it one single 5300 controller with 4 channels,
> used 2 to each enclosure? Or is it two 5300 controllers, each with 2
> channels, each 5300 to each enclosure?

Hi,

Its 2 5300's each with 4 channels, so in total I have 8 channels going to 4 enclosures. So each 5300 controls 1 array of 26 disks in 2 enclosures with 4 channels.

>
> Also: do me a favour and check those channel connections and that
> they are the right way around, as in "what they told you"? ;)
>
>
> >
> > According to compaqs proposal document each of these channels is
> > capable of 160mb/s giving 320mb/s to each enclosure. According to our
> > NT systems people there is no way to configure which channel to the
> > enclosure controls what disks in that enclosure.
>
> That's strange. Because for Raid 0, the controller MUST know
> which disk is next in the stripe set. There must be some logical
> translation going on inside the enclosures?
>

Yeah to be honest I am not 100% with all the details of how all this stuff works. I saw a seriously IO bound system, got compaq to spec the fastest direct attacthed storage they could get, but since then have had little involvement apart from the fact that it was my idea and it hasn't worked as well as expected. It has done the job in that the batch times have gone from 20+ hours to 7, so we are hitting the window, its just that I'm sure there is more to come from this system...

> >
> > What I am trying to get across to them this that it really should go
> > faster than this as it is and that something is broken/misconfigured
> > etc.
>
>
> Something else: what and how are you copying? Is it just a normal
> folder with 2Gb size and umpteen files in it? Drag and drop? Or is it
> just one single file of 2Gb size?

Yeah when I asked for them to copy a 2gb file, they didn't have one so created two copys of the NT system stuff which approximated to 2gb with thousands of files. This took 32 seconds to copy. Once I had given them a real 2gb file it went to 24secs...

>
>
> >
> > Thanks you your help with this.
>
> Pleasure. Not much help so far, just following your
> train of thought.

Yeah its appreciated though, I'm really looking for reassurance that I am not mad/stupid.

Cheers

Ralph Received on Fri Jun 13 2003 - 10:09:50 CDT