On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 06:01:23AM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > > > John: > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > I ended up writing a small C program to do the priority computation for me. > > > > I have two sets of FC-AL shelves attached to two dual-channel Qlogic > > cards. That gives me two paths to each disk. I have about 56 spindles > > in the current configuration, and am tying them together with md > > software raid. > > > > Now, even though each disk says it handles concurrent I/O on each > > port, my testing indicates that throughput suffers when using multibus > > by about 1/2 (from ~60 MB/sec sustained I/O with failover to 35 MB/sec > > when using multibus). > > > > However, with failover, I am effectively using only one channel on > > each card. With my custom priority callout, I more or less match the > > disks with even numbers to the even numbered scsi channels with a > > higher priority. Same with the odd numbered disks and odd numbered > > channels. The odds are 2ndary on even and vice versa. It seems to work > > rather well, and appears to spread the load nicely. > > > > Thanks again for your help! > > > I'm really glad you brought up the performance problem. I had posted > about it a few days ago but it seems to have gotten lost. We are really > struggling with performance issues when attempting to combine multiple > paths (in the case of multipath to one big target) or targets (in the > case of software RAID0 across several targets) rather than using, in > effect, JBODs. In our case, we are using iSCSI. > > Like you, we found that using multibus caused almost a linear drop in > performance. Round robin across two paths was half as much as aggregate > throughput to two separate disks, four paths, one fourth. > > We also tried striping across the targets with software RAID0 combined > with failover multipath - roughly the same effect. > > We really don't want to be forced to treated SAN attached disks as > JDOBs. Has anyone cracked this problem of using them in either multibus > or RAID0 so we can present them as a single device to the OS and still > load balance multiple paths. This is a HUGE problem for us so any help > is greatly appreciated. Thanks- John Hello. Hmm.. just a guess, but could this be related to the fact that if your paths to the storage are different iSCSI sessions (open-iscsi _doesn't_ support multiple connections per session aka MC/s), then there is a separate SCSI command queue per path.. and if SCSI requests are split across those queues they can get out-of-order and that causes performance drop? See: http://www.nabble.com/round-robin-with-vmware-initiator-and-iscsi-target-td21958346.html Especially the reply from Ross (CC). Maybe he has some comments :) -- Pasi -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
