Re: DIsk conversion question

Wellllllllll I woudl say that the person who configured this is not familiar with the IBM i operating system and it's I/O requirements.

I would strongly recommend that you reconfigure the LUNs to be something like 150G a piece in your case. This will give you significantly more I/O capability to the SAN. I'm not sure how the 7,200 RPM comes in to play as it's just a LUN. However if the operating system is seeing this as a SCSI-2 type of drive (which is what the 7200's looked like) then you have a SERIOUS bottleneck there and in that case I'd go much smaller on the LUNS.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

On 5/21/2012 11:44 AM, ldwopt@xxxxxxx wrote:

I am confused when converting direct attach to a SAN system

Our old system was had 12 127 15k rpm drives. We converted to an LPARed system with 3 Luns.
#1 572000M 7,200 rpm
#2 191000M 7,200 rpm
#3 763000M 7,200 rpm

I don't have the exact break down but there is supposed to be 60 drives allocated to the 3 luns.When we tried a test conversion this past weekend a disk bottle neck occurred during part of the initial start up when selected files were being reorged.

My thought on correcting the problem would be to:
1. Split the 3 luns into maybe 6 or more smaller units
2. Recreate the luns using 15k drives
3. Recreate the drives into 6 luns with 15k drives

Am on the correct track\?
Is there other option to consider?

TIA

Dave Willenborg
FNTS semi-retired
Omaha NE