Does anyone know if new controller cards can be replaced without re-installing OS? On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Burnash, James <jburnash at knight.com> wrote: > We use HP controllers here - p800, p812. They're pretty good - but I believe they're fairly pricey (my sources say $600-$800 for the p812, depending on the options for battery and cache. > > I use these controllers on my Gluster backend storage servers. Then again, we're an HP shop. > > James Burnash, Unix Engineering > > -----Original Message----- > From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Mohit Anchlia > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:47 PM > To: landman at scalableinformatics.com > Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org > Subject: Re: Performance > > What are some of the good controller cards would you recommend for SAS > drives? Dell and Areca is what I am seeing most suggested online. > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Mohit Anchlia <mohitanchlia at gmail.com> wrote: >> In your experience does it really help having journal on different >> disk? Just trying to see if it's worth the effort. Also, Gluster also >> recommends creating mkfs with larger blocks mkfs -I 256 >> >> As always thanks for the suggestion. >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Joe Landman >> <landman at scalableinformatics.com> wrote: >>> On 04/26/2011 05:48 PM, Mohit Anchlia wrote: >>>> >>>> I am not sure how valid this performance url is >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/Guide_to_Optimizing_GlusterFS >>>> >>>> Does it make sense to separate out the journal and create mkfs -I 256? >>>> >>>> Also, if I already have a file system on a different partition can I >>>> still use it to store journal from other partition without corrupting >>>> the file system? >>> >>> Journals are small write heavy. ?You really want a raw device for them. ?You >>> do not want file system caching underneath them. >>> >>> Raw partition for an external journal is best. ?Also, understand that ext* >>> suffers badly under intense parallel loads. ?Keep that in mind as you make >>> your file system choice. >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Joe Landman >>>> <landman at scalableinformatics.com> ?wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/21/2011 08:49 PM, Mohit Anchlia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> After lot of digging today finaly figured out that it's not really >>>>>> using PERC controller but some Fusion MPT. Then it wasn't clear which >>>>> >>>>> PERC is a rebadged LSI based on the 1068E chip. >>>>> >>>>>> tool it supports. Finally I installed lsiutil and was able to change >>>>>> the cache size. >>>>>> >>>>>> [root at dsdb1 ~]# lspci|grep LSI >>>>>> 02:00.0 SCSI storage controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic SAS1068E >>>>>> PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS (rev 08) >>>>> >>>>> ?This looks like PERC. ?These are roughly equivalent to the LSI 3081 >>>>> series. >>>>> ?These are not fast units. ?There is a variant of this that does RAID6, >>>>> its >>>>> usually available as a software update or plugin module (button?) to >>>>> this. >>>>> ?I might be thinking of the 1078 chip though. >>>>> >>>>> ?Regardless, these are fairly old designs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> [root at dsdb1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/big.file bs=128k count=40k >>>>>> oflag=direct >>>>>> 1024+0 records in >>>>>> 1024+0 records out >>>>>> 134217728 bytes (134 MB) copied, 0.742517 seconds, 181 MB/s >>>>>> >>>>>> I compared this with SW RAID mdadm that I created yesterday on one of >>>>>> the servers and I get around 300MB/s. I will test out first with what >>>>>> we have before destroying and testing with mdadm. >>>>> >>>>> So the software RAID is giving you 300 MB/s and the hardware 'RAID' is >>>>> giving you ~181 MB/s? ?Seems a pretty simple choice :) >>>>> >>>>> BTW: The 300MB/s could also be a limitation of the PCIe channel >>>>> interconnect >>>>> (or worse, if they hung the chip off a PCIx bridge). ?The motherboard >>>>> vendors are generally loathe to put more than a few PCIe lanes for >>>>> handling >>>>> SATA, Networking, etc. ?So typically you wind up with very low powered >>>>> 'RAID' and 'SATA/SAS' on the motherboard, connected by PCIe x2 or x4 at >>>>> most. ?A number of motherboards have NICs that are served by a single >>>>> PCIe >>>>> x1 link. >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your help that led me to this path. Another question I had >>>>>> was when creating mdadm RAID does it make sense to use multipathing? >>>>> >>>>> Well, for a shared backend over a fabric, I'd say possibly. ?For an >>>>> internal >>>>> connected set, I'd say no. ?Given what you are doing with Gluster, I'd >>>>> say >>>>> that the additional expense/pain of setting up a multipath scenario >>>>> probably >>>>> isn't worth it. >>>>> >>>>> Gluster lets you get many of these benefits at a higher level in the >>>>> stack. >>>>> ?Which to a degree, and in some use cases, obviates the need for >>>>> multipathing at a lower level. ?I'd still suggest real RAID at the lower >>>>> level (RAID6, and sometimes RAID10 make the most sense) for the backing >>>>> store. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joseph Landman, Ph.D >>>>> Founder and CEO >>>>> Scalable Informatics, Inc. >>>>> email: landman at scalableinformatics.com >>>>> web ?: http://scalableinformatics.com >>>>> ? ? ? http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster >>>>> phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 >>>>> fax ?: +1 866 888 3112 >>>>> cell : +1 734 612 4615 >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joseph Landman, Ph.D >>> Founder and CEO >>> Scalable Informatics, Inc. >>> email: landman at scalableinformatics.com >>> web ?: http://scalableinformatics.com >>> ? ? ? http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster >>> phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 >>> fax ?: +1 866 888 3112 >>> cell : +1 734 612 4615 >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > DISCLAIMER: > This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. > NOTICE REGARDING PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Knight Capital Group may, at its discretion, monitor and review the content of all e-mail communications. http://www.knight.com >
