Re: DIsk conversion question

[DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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