AW: [Ocfs-users] OCFS 1.0.9-6 performance with EVA 6000 Storage

[Magnus Lubeck]

Hi all,

Sorry to break in, but I find this thread a bit interesting.

Jeram: I'm not very familiar with HP storage and cannot find too much info
on the EVA 6000 array. Is it related to the EVA 5000 somehow, or is it a NAS
array?

In any case, how is the array configured. If the algorithm for hartbeat is
as described earlier (36 sector reads and one write per second (per
host???)) then you have some 37 I/O's per second per volume, which in your
case is close to 2000 I/O's per second PER box, which could easily be close
to 10k I/O per second if the hartbeat is per node.

Am I right in this assumption? In Jeram's case, having 5 nodes, 51 mounts.
Would the hartbeat generate 2k or 10k I/O's?

In any case, if I'm correct, this would then (as Wim states) be somewhat
exhausting for most parts of the storage system. Even 2000 I/O's per second
could easily exhaust a LUN group in most arrays.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

//magnus

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ocfs-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com
[mailto:ocfs-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com] Im Auftrag von Jeram
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 03:53
An: Wim Coekaerts
Cc: Sunil Mushran; ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
Betreff: RE: [Ocfs-users] OCFS 1.0.9-6 performance with EVA 6000 Storage

Hi Wim...

Ok Then...I will try .11 first, and awaiting for .12,meanwhile I am waiting
for HP Engineers whether they have any good idea from eva6000 point of
view..

Thanks a lot for your informations.
Rgds/Jeram

-----Original Message-----
From: Wim Coekaerts [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:41 AM
To: Jeram
Cc: Sunil Mushran; ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS 1.0.9-6 performance with EVA 6000 Storage


1.0.11 won't change amount of io. if you already have io problems you
have to use .12, which should be out any day..  


On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:35:49AM +0700, Jeram wrote:
> Hi Sunil...
> 
> Thanks for your response, I will try to use 1.0.11, and observe the
> performance...
> 
> Rgds/Jeram
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sunil Mushran [mailto:Sunil.Mushran at oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:30 AM
> To: Jeram
> Cc: ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com; ocfs-devel at oss.oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS 1.0.9-6 performance with EVA 6000 Storage
> 
> 
> Heartbeating in ocfs is currently per volume. The nmthread reads 36
> sectors and writes 1 sector every second or so. The io in vmstat you see
> is due to heartbeat.
> 
> As far as the mount is concerned, the mount thread waits for the
> nmthread the stabilize, 10 secs or so.
> 
> We are working on making the heartbeat configurable. 1.0.12 will have
> some stuff regarding that.... hb and timeout values. It will not be
> activated by default. We are still working out the details. That will
> reduce the hb related io.
> 
> If you want to use 51 mounts, make sure your hardware can handle the io.
> For e.g., if you see ocfs msgs like, "Removing nodes" and "Adding nodes"
> without a node performing any mount/umount, you have a problem. In
> anycase, you should use 1.0.11 at the least. In 1.0.10, we doubled the
> timeout from 1.0.9.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> Sunil
> 
> On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 18:04, Jeram wrote:
> > Dear All...
> > 
> > I need some information regarding OCFS performance in my Linux Box,
> herewith
> > is my environment details :
> > 1. We are using RHAS 2.1 with kernel 2.4.9-e.27 Enterprise
> > 2. OCFS version : 2.4.9-e-enterprise-1.0.9-6
> > 3. Oracle RDBMS : 9.2.0.4 RAC with 5 Nodes
> > 4. Storage = EVA 6000 with 8 TB SIZE
> > 5. We have 1 DiskGroup and 51 LUNs configured in EVA6000.
> > My Question is :
> > 1. It takes arround 15 minutes to mount arround 51 ocfs file system, is
> this
> > a normal situation?
> > 2. I monitor the OS using VMSTAT without starting the RAC server, column
> IO
> > (bo and bi) it's giving 3 digits value continuously, then I unmount all
> the
> > OCFS filesystem, again monitor the IO using VMSTAT,  column IO (bo and
bi)
> > it's giving 1 digits value, any idea why this is happen?
> > I have raised this issue to HP engineers who provide the HW, have not
got
> > the answer yet.
> > Thanks in advance
> > Rgds/Jeram  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ocfs-users mailing list
> > Ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs-users
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs-users mailing list
> Ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs-users
_______________________________________________
Ocfs-users mailing list
Ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs-users