A SAN virtual disk/lun/volume cannot be shared between servers unless they are clustered (and/or use a cluster-aware filesystem (like VMFS or GFS)).
With raid 10 more drives pretty much means more performance independent of your read/write ratio (unlike parity based raid where writes get slower the more drives you add, so high write ratio IO could actually get slower with more drives).
However, splitting into 2 6-disk raid 10's does mean that if one of the 2 is being used heavily, the other isn't affected by this (so you can split your high IO data between the 2 diskgroups).
I don't believe the MD-series uses separate I/O queues for multiple LUNs. This only applies to Equallogic if I'm not mistaken.
So if everything will be presented to a single host or single hypervisor cluster, I don't think it'll make a difference other than the side-effects.
With the side-effects I mean that using multiple smaller LUNs means that 1 application cannot take diskspace away from another (possibly impacting the other application's functionality), but also means that one application cannot borrow space from another.
Dev Mgr
4 Operator
•
9.3K Posts
1
May 13th, 2013 11:00
A SAN virtual disk/lun/volume cannot be shared between servers unless they are clustered (and/or use a cluster-aware filesystem (like VMFS or GFS)).
With raid 10 more drives pretty much means more performance independent of your read/write ratio (unlike parity based raid where writes get slower the more drives you add, so high write ratio IO could actually get slower with more drives).
However, splitting into 2 6-disk raid 10's does mean that if one of the 2 is being used heavily, the other isn't affected by this (so you can split your high IO data between the 2 diskgroups).
Dev Mgr
4 Operator
•
9.3K Posts
1
May 14th, 2013 09:00
I don't believe the MD-series uses separate I/O queues for multiple LUNs. This only applies to Equallogic if I'm not mistaken.
So if everything will be presented to a single host or single hypervisor cluster, I don't think it'll make a difference other than the side-effects.
With the side-effects I mean that using multiple smaller LUNs means that 1 application cannot take diskspace away from another (possibly impacting the other application's functionality), but also means that one application cannot borrow space from another.
A.J-111
7 Posts
0
May 13th, 2013 06:00
also, is there in reason we should separate Luns that reside in the same Raid? (aside from the basic roles, VM, FS, DB ..)
A.J-111
7 Posts
0
May 13th, 2013 23:00
Hello Dev Mgr,
What about the LUNS? is it better to create 10 (100gb) LUNs or 1 (1tb) LUN that will serve the same purpose (e.g. VM)
I've read that "more LUNs presented to the host means that separate I/O queues will be used"
thanks.
A.J-111
7 Posts
0
May 14th, 2013 23:00
Does the order of LUN creation affect their performance (by placing the first/last LUN in the drives outer tracks)?
any performance tuning white papers for this san?