Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated. 

Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated. 

Hello Hashem,

are you using dedicated FC ports for the PBHA connection and the host attachment, or are all ports "shared usage"?

Did you configure the "location" for each defined host/LPAR?

Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated. 

Hello Hashem,

are you using dedicated FC ports for the PBHA connection and the host attachment, or are all ports "shared usage"?

Did you configure the "location" for each defined host/LPAR?

Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated. 

Dear Uwe, I used 2 dedicated port from each canister to configure Fiber partnership as recommended in redbooks.

however, if you mean location for host from edit name tap, what is the difference if I defined the location or leave it blank? 

the policy define dis ha policy from primary site to ha site .

Hello Hashem,

are you using dedicated FC ports for the PBHA connection and the host attachment, or are all ports "shared usage"?

Did you configure the "location" for each defined host/LPAR?

Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated. 

Hello Hashem,

configuring the location property or not does influence the path priorities provided from the FlashSystem to the attached host using ALUA.

If you do not configure a location, the paths to the FlashSystem which ist hosing the AMS (Active Management System) for the storage parition are getting a higher priority and will be primariy used.

If you configure a location, the FlashSystem assigned to the same location will be used primarily (based on the higher path priority to that system).

Dear Uwe, I used 2 dedicated port from each canister to configure Fiber partnership as recommended in redbooks.

however, if you mean location for host from edit name tap, what is the difference if I defined the location or leave it blank? 

the policy define dis ha policy from primary site to ha site .

Hello Hashem,

are you using dedicated FC ports for the PBHA connection and the host attachment, or are all ports "shared usage"?

Did you configure the "location" for each defined host/LPAR?

Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated. 

Dear Uwe,

what is the  effect if I configure host location , is it effect performance, latency , etc..?  or it would help just with path priority ? 

Hello Hashem,

configuring the location property or not does influence the path priorities provided from the FlashSystem to the attached host using ALUA.

If you do not configure a location, the paths to the FlashSystem which ist hosing the AMS (Active Management System) for the storage parition are getting a higher priority and will be primariy used.

If you configure a location, the FlashSystem assigned to the same location will be used primarily (based on the higher path priority to that system).

Dear Uwe, I used 2 dedicated port from each canister to configure Fiber partnership as recommended in redbooks.

however, if you mean location for host from edit name tap, what is the difference if I defined the location or leave it blank? 

the policy define dis ha policy from primary site to ha site .

Hello Hashem,

are you using dedicated FC ports for the PBHA connection and the host attachment, or are all ports "shared usage"?

Did you configure the "location" for each defined host/LPAR?

Hi folks, 

we recently configured PBHA on 2 FS300 systems using fiber zoning partnership , 1 storage partition with one VG for all disks. 

the disks inside storage partition mapped to different Power10 machines with AIX LPARS. however, we notice that we have a lot of alerts on IBM Spectrum control indicates that the bandwidth performance > 85 on all storage FC ports and the application owners complains about performance and slowness which didn't found when we used HyperSwap  before. 

both storages used 4 FC 32GB connected using 32GB SFP on SAN. 

My questions :

would the performance enhance if we create multiple VGs??  and can we move the volumes between VGs without effecting the running systems? 

any recommendation would be appreciated.