7133-d40/hacmp cabling question

7133-d40/hacmp cabling question

Post by g. doog » Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:12:27



I currently have one 7133-d40 drawer with 8 9.1g drives in slots 1-8
(defined as one raid5 array with one hot spare in hotspare pool A0)
that is shared between two ha cluster nodes.  I now need to add
additional disk space. I have filled the remaining 8 slots (9-16) on
the drawer with similar drives, but am not sure the best cabling
scenario to use.  After reading the adapter planning guide (and other
docs) I question whether to:
1) create a second array on the existing loop (which uses the A-ports)
and put
drives 9-16 in a seperate hotspare pool A1         or,
2) create a second array on a second loop by using the B-ports on the
same adapter and put them in hotspare pool B0.

I realize it can be done either way but I would think that two loops
would provide better reponse by splitting the io across two loops.
From the books I get the feeling that for a smaller number of arrays
(1-2) with such few disks that performance shouldn't be a problem
either way. Support says two loops should provide better performance
but probably not enough to notice.  Does anyone have any good rules of
thumb to use in these situations?

 
 
 

7133-d40/hacmp cabling question

Post by Simon Marches » Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:28:14



> I currently have one 7133-d40 drawer with 8 9.1g drives in slots 1-8
> (defined as one raid5 array with one hot spare in hotspare pool A0)
> that is shared between two ha cluster nodes.  I now need to add
> additional disk space. I have filled the remaining 8 slots (9-16) on
> the drawer with similar drives, but am not sure the best cabling
> scenario to use.  After reading the adapter planning guide (and other
> docs) I question whether to:
> 1) create a second array on the existing loop (which uses the A-ports)
> and put
> drives 9-16 in a seperate hotspare pool A1         or,
> 2) create a second array on a second loop by using the B-ports on the
> same adapter and put them in hotspare pool B0.

> I realize it can be done either way but I would think that two loops
> would provide better reponse by splitting the io across two loops.
> From the books I get the feeling that for a smaller number of arrays
> (1-2) with such few disks that performance shouldn't be a problem
> either way. Support says two loops should provide better performance
> but probably not enough to notice.  Does anyone have any good rules of
> thumb to use in these situations?

Support is right - two loops would be better but you probably won't
notice. But the main factor is cabling - remember to have two separate
loops in a single 7133-D40 you must force inline some of the ports and
that's usually not such a good idea.

 
 
 

1. Getting original shipping carton for 7133-D40

We have a need to send a 7133-D40 SSA drawer to another of our sites;
we also want to keep it in good shape and must use an original carton
in order to be insured by the shipper *and* to be covered by IBM warranty
along with using their preferred shipper. No problem.

Only catch is, we don't still have the original shipping carton.

Does anyone know where I'd want to even begin looking for one? Does
IBM sell these, or is it possible to get an unused one somewhere?

-Dan

2. Can I do resolutions greater than 80x?

3. Advanced SSA 7133-D40

4. Problem installing slackware 2.02 on IDE 540Mb?

5. Plan to have Two Servers each attached to the same two 7133-D40 using 6230 adapters

6. Relational DBMS for linux

7. IBM 7133-D40 with 8518/8218

8. ATI RAGE Pro support

9. Multiple pdisks ... same 7133-D40 slot address

10. SSA Loops on a 7133-D40