On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:29:34PM -0500, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:00:44PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 05:20:37PM +0100, bob flynn wrote: > > > > > >Red Hat recommends that you use the dm-multipath stuff instead. This is > > > >brand new functionality that was just introduced in Update 2. > > > > Yes, and it works quite well. People on storageworks will see only a > > small performance gain for now, but will have failover. > > A recent report on the dm-devel list reports a performance *loss* with > dm-multipathing accessing EVA3000 storage. I don't know the validity of > that report though. That's what I'm using, and I recently did ask whether this is still true, so perhaps you're quoting me? You get the performance gain from multipath's load-ballancing, but pay back 20% (according to a report in June). The net effect is what I described as a "small performance gain for now". It is in the range of 10-15%. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpp44lOMEcY8.pgp
Description: PGP signature