2008-4-6 23:36
小猪
Array Considerations DS8000 转自IBM.COM
Array Considerations
RAID type
– RAID5 and RAID10 arrays perform equally for read
– RAID5 array performs better for sequential write
– RAID10 array performs better for random write
DS6000 Array size
– 8-DDM arrays are recommended unless there is a specific requirement for 4-DDM
arrays
Sparing
– Arrays without spares may mean better potential random performance
– Array capacity should be confirmed after array creation
– Array types (with spares and without spares) should be balanced across server0 and
server1 (when ranks are assigned to extent pools)
– DS8000 - minimum of 4 spares per DA (64 or 128 disks) (single disk type)
– DS6000 - minimum of 2 spares per 64 disks (single disk type0
Array Considerations
RAID type
– RAID5 and RAID10 arrays perform equally for read
– RAID5 array performs better for sequential write
– RAID10 array performs better for random write
DS6000 Array size
– 8-DDM arrays are recommended unless there is a specific requirement for 4-DDM
arrays
Sparing
– Arrays without spares may mean better potential random performance
– Array capacity should be confirmed after array creation
– Array types (with spares and without spares) should be balanced across server0 and
server1 (when ranks are assigned to extent pools)
– DS8000 - minimum of 4 spares per DA (64 or 128 disks) (single disk type)
– DS6000 - minimum of 2 spares per 64 disks (single disk type0
2008-4-7 10:55
笑看风云淡
没明白小猪的意思，转这个说明什么？
2008-4-7 11:37
小猪
– RAID5 array performs better for sequential write
这条我以前理解是RAID5写都会比RIAD10差.:$
这条我以前理解是RAID5写都会比RIAD10差.:$
2008-4-7 12:00
bennial
小猪这个文档从哪里看来的啊，不准确啊
– DS8000 - minimum of 4 spares per DA (64 or 128 disks) (single disk type)
– DS6000 - minimum of 2 spares per 64 disks (single disk type0
对于DS8000和DS6000来说，spare的作用范围是DA pair，一个DA pair里面相同的disk type应该要有4块spare，所以上面说的per DA是不准确的，而且跟disk数量没有关系。
– DS8000 - minimum of 4 spares per DA (64 or 128 disks) (single disk type)
– DS6000 - minimum of 2 spares per 64 disks (single disk type0
对于DS8000和DS6000来说，spare的作用范围是DA pair，一个DA pair里面相同的disk type应该要有4块spare，所以上面说的per DA是不准确的，而且跟disk数量没有关系。
2008-4-7 13:23
笑看风云淡
[quote]原帖由 [i]小猪[/i] 于 2008-4-7 11:37 发表 [url=http://bbs.loveunix.net/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=773182&ptid=83001][img]http://bbs.loveunix.net/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
– RAID5 array performs better for sequential write
这条我以前理解是RAID5写都会比RIAD10差.:$ [/quote]
最好贴全部原文，否则不知道它测试时的环境，没有说服力
– RAID5 array performs better for sequential write
这条我以前理解是RAID5写都会比RIAD10差.:$ [/quote]
最好贴全部原文，否则不知道它测试时的环境，没有说服力
2008-4-7 19:21
小猪
不好意思.看完就忘记啦.下次一定发全文.:lol
2008-4-7 19:22
小猪
谢谢大家啦.:lu11: :lu11:
页: [1]
Powered by Discuz! Archiver 5.5.0 © 2001-2006 Comsenz Inc.