On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 02:25 -0500, Jonathan E Brassow wrote: > The system bus isn't a limiting factor is it? 64-bit PCI-X will get > 8.5 GB/s (plenty), but 32-bit PCI 33MHz got 133MB/s. > > Can your disks sustain that much bandwidth? 10 striped drives might get > better than 200MB/s if done right, I suppose. > > Don't the switches run at 2 Gbits/s? 2 Gbits/s / 10 (throw in 2 bits > for protocol) ~= 200MB/s. > Thanks for the fast responses: The card is a 64-bit PCI-X, so I don't think the bus is the bottleneck, and anyway the vendor specifies a maximum throughput of 200Mbyte/s per card. The disk array does not appear to be the bottleneck because we get 200Mbyte/s when we use *two* HBAs in load-balanced mode. The question is really about why we only see O(100Mbyte/s) with one HBA when we can achieve O(200MByte/s) with two cards, given that one card should be able to achieve that throughput. I don't think the method of producing the traffic (bonnie++ or something else) should be relevant but if it were that would be very interesting for the benchmark authors! The storage is an HDS 9980 (I think?) > Could be a bunch of reasons... > > brassow > > On May 18, 2006, at 2:05 AM, Bob Gautier wrote: > > > Yesterday my client was testing of multipath load balancing and > > failover > > on a system running ext3 on a logical volume which comprises about ten > > SAN LUNs all reached using multipath in multibus mode over two QL2340 > > HBAs. > > > > On the one hand, the client is very impressed: running bonnie++ > > (inspired by Ronan's GFS v VxFS example) we get just over 200Mbyte/s > > over the two HBAs, and when we pull a link we get about 120MByte/s. > > > > The throughput and failover response times are better than the client > > has ever seen, but we're wondering why we are not seeing higher > > throughput per-HBA -- the QL2340 datasheet says it should manage > > 200Mbyte/s and all switches etc. run at 2GBps. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Bob Gautier > > +44 7921 700996 > > > > -- > > > > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel > > > -- dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel