Yes it still counts. It's not so much the speed of the DASD or the
controller, but the queuing inside IBM i. The more drives the more queues.
In order to keep performance at acceptable levels you'll need at least 6
DASD units.
As to the folks that see massive performance improvements with fewer drives,
when you change the engine from a 1.2 liter 2 piston to a V8 4.6 liter
supercharged engine, you might just get off the line a little quicker......
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:05 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Disk: Percent full a performance factor?
<snip>
It depends on how many DASD devices there are. If there are say 40-50
devices then running up to 85% -- 88% might not be a problem, but with 6
devices, you're in for a hard time.
</snip>
Is this so true anymore, about the number of disk arms being so critical?
I hear people speak that mantra all the time yet I've found that the newer
disks, controllers, etc have always amazed me. Many years ago we dropped a
system down from 42 disk arms down to just 7 of the then newer drives (still
spinning disks) and my performance was significantly better.
Recently I've dropped from some lpars each having dozens of their own disk
drives down to 21 storage spaces on a system with only 32 drives (and that
was only 1 of the 5 lpars being guested from this host) and the performance
was much better. Ok, granted, I went from a mix of SSD's and HDD's to pure
SSD's, of a newer generation.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: "Jim Oberholtzer" <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/20/2014 02:54 PM
Subject: RE: Disk: Percent full a performance factor?
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Rob,
It depends on how many DASD devices there are. If there are say 40-50
devices then running up to 85% -- 88% might not be a problem, but with 6
devices, you're in for a hard time.
Generally Databases tell you the knee in the response time curve starts at
about 80% and steepens quickly but with IBM i, as long as the DASD
device
busy percentages are OK and there is room for temporary indexes, then that
percent full you have to be concerned with goes up as well, so higher
percent full is OK.
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 1:29 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Disk: Percent full a performance factor?
The old rule of thumb I had learned back on the S/36 was that you really
didn't want to go over 80% of disk space used. I had a manager (came from
the programmer pit and rose through the ranks) that wondered if that still
held true with the growth of disk. After all, 20% free of a whole gig of
disk space sure was a lot more than 20% of 300MB. I argued that object
size
was significantly larger and that reorgs and whatnot still needed
significant portions of disk space.
Now that we're measuring disk in TB and MB is nought but a rounding error
does 80% still hold true? If so, why?
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
