On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 08:47, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Andy Levy <andy.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 07:55, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@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 > http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/partnerDocs/BestPracticesforFileSystemAlignmentinVirtualEnvironments.pdf. > 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 My old work accounts at Red Hat and NetApp are no longer active (I 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 > https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv6-beta-list/2010-August/msg00069.html, > 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.
