Hello togehter,

our company has sold 3 IBM DS-300 with dual-controler.
We have 3 HBA-Cards for iSCSI Connection.
The DS300 have a connection on
- all eth2 port with a own VLAN
- all eth3 port with a own VLAN
- all management port to the public VLAN
THE HBA-cards are inside the VLNA for eth2/3

Wenn I start a copy on maschine with the HBA card to the local SCSI 320
RAID 5, i need for 1 GBytebetween 1 and 2 minutes. On the switch, i get
a passthrough of 100-120 MBit/sec.

I have tried only one switch (HP ProCurve 5304XL - GB) and conneceted
only the 3 DS300 and 1 maschine and got the same results.

Can it be, that this iSCSI Product is so sloewly???
I have found something about changing burst rate, but tried without
result.

Hope someone can help me...
Thanks Uwe

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I had a similar problem. The copy rate was being limited by the speed
of the disk in my machine (300 megabits per second). You may be running
into the same problem.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Tim,

that not right. If I copy the same file from my rendering machine to
the server local scsi-harddisc I need between 15 and 25 seconds per 1
MB...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

You could try using a gigabit crossover cable connected to a single
initiator and your SAN port (use the second controller)  to see if it
is the switch causing your problem.
How do you have your disks configured on the SAN? What RAID level? How
many disks?
Are you talking about write or read speed? Depending on configuration,
that can make a big difference.
Are large packet frames enabled on your switch? If not, you should do
so.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hello Tim,

I have spoken to a IBM gui.
He told me to make a smaller logical volume and have care with volumes
greater 700 GB for windows / or under 300 GB with Windows above 2003...

To test I have made 1 array with one volume.
This was on a dual controler system with 2 times 7 discs (137 GB)
I have connected with a crossover cable on the eth3 (as defined) on the
b controller.

At the moment I have deleted the array an created 2 array. Every array
on a own controller with a maximum size down under 700 GB.
On the first array, I have defined 1 volume and on the second array I
have defined 2 volumes.
The first thing is, that I have created this at the same time and the
first volume is still in progress. The second (2 Volumes on 1 array
about 280 GB) are still ready...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]