global group takes a long time to go online
Hi everyone, I'm facing the following problem related with the time to go online for a service group that is configured as a Global Group, in two clusters (Cluster1 and Cluster2) on which the group can come accross (each cluster only has a single server), it is taking a longer time to the service group to come online under a failover event. I am simulating a failover event on the server that is running the service group turning off it, to simulate a power supply cut off on that station! Please is there a parameter that I could modify to reduce this time? Attached you will find the service group relationship and its properties! Thank you Marlon
Poor disk write performance
We have a server 2003 R2 machine, which primarily is running as our NetBackup Master server. In addition to this we have a second machine which is/was setup as in a cluster using Veritas Storage Foundations VVR to replicate the data and VCS to handle the application side of things. About three weeks ago we noticed that the disk write performance was very bad. Using a tool provided by NetBackup to write zero's to the file systems, we noted that it would start off fast, and then performance would drop significantly to the point where it was writing about 0Mb/s or 1Mb/s. This is present on both SAN volumes and local volumes. The same write profile is observed. We also see disk queue lengths go up to 130, but no higher than this This is the case on both of the servers running VCS/VSF, but is not present on any other servers running NBU but not running the storage foundation software. There is no VxCache memory config enabled on the server or any disks. All the disks are reporting as being misaligned. Some time ago VVR was disabled/broken and has not been reinstated as we do not have Symantec support on the product, and noone here knows how to use it. So I am reaching out to anyone who may be able to point me in the right direction. I have read the admin guide and it has given me a bit more understanding of the components in the software, but has not provided much in the way of troubleshooting this write performance problem. Today I will run IOMeter to test reads/writes and a combination of both. VSC/VSF version is 5.1 SP1
Storage foundation for Windows bandwidth issue..
Hi, We have brought the below products:- 1. VRTS STORAGE FOUNDATION 6.0 WIN FOR OS TIER STANDARD EDITION PER SERVER STD LIC EXPRESS BAND S. 2. VRTS STORAGE FOUNDATION OPTION VOLUME REPLICATOR 6.0 WIN FOR OS TIER STANDARD EDITION PER SERVER STD LIC EXPRESS BAND S The above product is brought for both the site. Now , we have the following to replicate:- 1. Operating System - windows 2008 R2 Ent. 2. Drive - C:, D: E: 3. Oracle 11.2g Database installed on this system. (installation is in C Drive and database is in D Drive). 4. Bandwidth - Shared 24 Mbps/18-20 ms. 5. All drive are local drive in RAID configuration. 6. Database size is 15-16 GB I am very much new to Storage foundation. I have the below query:- 1. Will the above license will work for the drive replication to a different geographical location. 2. Will the bandwidth is enough to conduct the replication. Is there any installation "getting started' short of docs. Is there anything I need to check before installation. What could be the performance of the same. Any pros and corns.... Thanks.Every 64-bit Windows system with QLogic FC HBAs is under-performing
Shock headline, lots of caveats. April 2013 release of QLogic Windows device driver for 2[4-6]xx Fibre Channel HBAs (9.1.11.20) uses 64-bit DMA addressing. Presumably previous versions (<=9.1.10.28) use 32-bit DMA addressing. Supporting evidence from Release Notes: Added support support for full 64 bit physical addressing [ER101742] Have not talked with anyone from QLogic to confirm this, but seeing the above in the Release Notes was an a-ha! moment. I believe it because I have lots of observations that fit. Specifically using 100% of a core per 200 MB/s I/O stream (probably doing buffer copying and interrupt handling) and extreme volatility of I/O speeds under load. Now I know why Emulex cards perform better in Windows 2008 R2 environments.