On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 08:47, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Andy Levy <andy.levy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 07:55, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is more likely to happen in virtualization due to limiting the
>>> disk resources. Think hard about your back end disk storage. Let us
>>> know if you use attached storage such as a NetApp or fibre channel,
>>> I've got some notes on aligning those filesystems for virtualization,
>>> which makes a huge performance improvement.
>> I'd like to see those notes if I can. We're on a NetApp device right
>> now but when we upgrade our environment later this year we'll be
>> moving storage to an Equallogic device. We have had some Subversion
>> performance issues with large checkouts using the NetApp device. The
>> Equallogic appears to be better-tuned in general (we've had no trouble
>> running a 100GB SQL Server DB off it) but every little bit helps.
> The big booby trap was the 4096 byte block alignment, as described at
> This is awkward to configure fat installation time for virtualized
> OS's, and it makes a huge performance difference. If you look up "4096
> byte block NetApp Nico Kadel-Garcia" on Google, you'll see my comments
> on this for the last year or so.
> My old work accounts at Red Hat and NetApp are no longer active (I
> ended that contract and started a new job.), so I don't have access to
> the scripts I submitted on their support sites. Do you have Access to
> Red Hat's knowledgebase? Some notes are at
> and I can dig around for a published copy of the tools.
Thanks, when my SAN guy & I are back in the office at the same time
again (later in July) I'll run this by him & see if it's anything we
can tweak for our new setup.
Received on 2011-07-01 17:21:21 CEST