|
Rhymenoserous posted:Right now we're not offloading anything (Yeah I know). Please bear in mind that this organization had 0 operational level backups/snapshots of any kind with the exception of the SQL databases (And only the DB backups themselves) prior to me being hired about 9 months ago. If I still have to offload backups and manage restores using a data protection suite then I'm probably just going to evaluate the Nimble from a performance perspective and compare the overall costs to a solution that has all those features like a Netapp filer.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 20:51 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 12:49 |
|
|
three posted:How comfortable are you with being one of a very small number of users? It will mean you will be the one running into bugs more often than the other vendors that probably have just as many bugs but have more people to find them and fix them before you notice. Considering the horror stories Goons have shared about their VNX 5300s, I'm not sure Nimble will be any worse. The fact that I haven't found anything really bad about them on the internet actually worries me more than a few 'something broke, support fixed really fast' anecdotes would. Regardless, they're coming in for a Song and Dance (hopefully) next week so I'll see what my upper management thinks about the risk:feature:value ratio they offer. Does anyone here have questions you'd like me to ask their team?
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 20:52 |
|
|
bull3964 posted:I would say firmware upgrades are another place where you can get nailed. I think a lot of it is this, yeah. Firmware update screwing the pooch, or one controller dying and the failover not happening correctly, stuff like that.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 20:52 |
|
|
Beelzebubba9 posted:Considering the horror stories Goons have shared about their VNX 5300s, I'm not sure Nimble will be any worse. The fact that I haven't found anything really bad about them on the internet actually worries me more than a few 'something broke, support fixed really fast' anecdotes would. Yeah they're coming after us hard too and we're not even all that big of a shop. We're 6ish months away from making and sort of decision and they're already trying to get me to see a demo and want to see if they can accelerate our timeline.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 20:55 |
|
|
Number19 posted:If I still have to offload backups and manage restores using a data protection suite then I'm probably just going to evaluate the Nimble from a performance perspective and compare the overall costs to a solution that has all those features like a Netapp filer. It has replication features, I'm just waiting for my company to stop dragging it's feet and let me purchase one of the smaller arrays to hold offsite snapshots.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 20:56 |
|
|
Number19 posted:Yeah they're coming after us hard too and we're not even all that big of a shop. We're 6ish months away from making and sort of decision and they're already trying to get me to see a demo and want to see if they can accelerate our timeline. They did this to me too, I was told in confidence by a tech that they put some pretty hard Quota's on their sales guys, and that he actually transfered to the technical end to avoid the stress. I remember a point a long time ago when NetApp was just as annoying. Docjowles posted:I think a lot of it is this, yeah. Firmware update screwing the pooch, or one controller dying and the failover not happening correctly, stuff like that. My rear end in a top hat used to pucker during EMC flair code updates.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 21:01 |
|
|
Docjowles posted:I think a lot of it is this, yeah. Firmware update screwing the pooch, or one controller dying and the failover not happening correctly, stuff like that. This is possible, but then so is it possible that SCCM pushes a patch that breaks all of your workstations. Oracle pushing an update that, say, switches the boot order so that ZFS comes up before iSCSI and causes none of your SUN servers to see their storage when they boot (a real thing that happened). Does that mean you never patch or update anything? In the rare event that a firmware upgrade hoses everything you just roll back to the previous version and call up your sales people and throw a fit. It sucks, but the occasional software bug is a part of IT life. And if controller fail-over doesn't work properly then how is that worse than having a failure in which fail-over isn't an option? In either case the system is down, just the same, but in the first case at least you can yell and scream at a vendor to make it work better. EDIT: None of this applies to EMC, never update anything on EMC gear ever, don't even touch it unless it is to strike the match you will use to burn it to the ground.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 21:11 |
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:EMC would actually do well to pick up the product. The basic storage architecture EMC uses hasn't really changed over the last 10 years. They could also learn something about GUI development as well because gently caress unisphere right up it's worthless rear end (Still better than what came before but drat.) I agree that I think it would be a win for EMC because it's definitely better than what they've got right now. But, as you said, they won't, because they're pimping the hell out of VNX and picking up another storage vendor that competes in the same areas would be a tacit admission that VNX kind of sucks. And because then they couldn't continue to obfuscate things in an effort to extort money out of customers for professional services and classes. At NetApp Professional Services are not treated as a separate profit center. Generally PS is meant to basically break even internally while accelerating sales. Im told that at EMC PS is a large profit generating portion of the organization, distinct from sales. I suspect that a lot of this is by design, and why EMC products are behind still behind the curve when it comes to simplicity and manageability.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 21:24 |
|
|
NippleFloss posted:
This is absolutely true: on the higher end units EMC drat near hands you the hardware while selling you support contracts that will make your wallet bleed.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 21:33 |
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:They did this to me too, I was told in confidence by a tech that they put some pretty hard Quota's on their sales guys, and that he actually transfered to the technical end to avoid the stress. I'm perfectly content to string them along for as long as I need to. They're holding a cruise event next week that should be fun. Only problem is that once you're on the boat you can't leave until they get back and I only have so much tolerance for sales guys in person. Edit: oh man it has two groups of guys that have been hounding me for a long time. Maybe I should skip this one, especially if I can't escape my any other means than jumping into some very polluted water.
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 21:49 |
|
|
Does anyone know much about the Dell Online courses for Into to EqualLogic PS Series Storage Arrays? Specificially if we purchase training for them (but share a login for the account the training was purchased on) can we view the training at any time even after completing it?
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 23:47 |
|
|
three posted:You have to configure all of your hosts to tolerate ~40 seconds of the EQL array being unavailable during firmware upgrades. Maybe this is recommended with other iSCSI arrays, but I haven't ran into it yet? I never did it but IIRC my values are ~30 secs and my hosts all tolerate failovers just fine...
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 00:22 |
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Does anyone know much about the Dell Online courses for Into to EqualLogic PS Series Storage Arrays? Specificially if we purchase training for them (but share a login for the account the training was purchased on) can we view the training at any time even after completing it? I cannot fathom what they can teach you that you cannot learn yourself in a few days, for free...
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 00:22 |
|
|
szlevi posted:I never did it but IIRC my values are ~30 secs and my hosts all tolerate failovers just fine... Do other arrays require this, and specifically state this requirement?
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 01:37 |
|
|
three posted:Do other arrays require this, and specifically state this requirement? NetApp's various host utilities (SnapDrive, VSC) will set these timeout values for you automatically.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 02:39 |
|
|
This talk of configuring iSCSI hosts to accommodate node failover reminds me of one of the reasons why I really prefer FC over iSCSI. Assuming the fabric is configured correctly hosts will failover between nodes as soon as they receive an RSCN. Propagation of RSCNs is pretty much instantaneous in a well-configured fabric which makes everything extremely tolerant to failures.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 10:20 |
|
|
cheese-cube posted:This talk of configuring iSCSI hosts to accommodate node failover reminds me of one of the reasons why I really prefer FC over iSCSI. Assuming the fabric is configured correctly hosts will failover between nodes as soon as they receive an RSCN. Propagation of RSCNs is pretty much instantaneous in a well-configured fabric which makes everything extremely tolerant to failures. Of course, very few people out there actually use iSNS, but the functionality is there for iSCSI initiators.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 10:33 |
|
|
szlevi posted:I cannot fathom what they can teach you that you cannot learn yourself in a few days, for free...
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 10:40 |
|
|
Misogynist posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Storage_Name_Service#State_Change_Notification What is the main reason that people choose iSCSI over FC? The company that I previously worked for always deployed FC SANs so the bulk of my experience is with FC which I came to prefer over iSCSI. The majority of the talk in this thread seems to be around iSCSI devices so I'm just wondering what is the deciding factor to deploy iSCSI over FC.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 10:54 |
|
|
cheese-cube posted:What is the main reason that people choose iSCSI over FC? The company that I previously worked for always deployed FC SANs so the bulk of my experience is with FC which I came to prefer over iSCSI. The majority of the talk in this thread seems to be around iSCSI devices so I'm just wondering what is the deciding factor to deploy iSCSI over FC.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 11:29 |
|
|
adorai posted:cost and simplicity. Why spend the extra for an fc switch and hba when iscsi works just fine? See that's what I thought the main reason would be: the ability to leverage existing switching equipment. However what about environments which require storage bandwidth greater than 1Gb but do not already have 10Gb switching equipment? Is that the point where deploying FC become cost-effective? On that subject have 16Gb FC HBAs and switches hit the market yet or are vendors still finalising their designs? cheese-cube fucked around with this message at Aug 17, 2012 around 11:55 |
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 11:53 |
|
|
When your IT crew's never touched FC it makes a lot of sense to not get into it.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 12:23 |
|
|
cheese-cube posted:See that's what I thought the main reason would be: the ability to leverage existing switching equipment. However what about environments which require storage bandwidth greater than 1Gb but do not already have 10Gb switching equipment? Is that the point where deploying FC become cost-effective? Not even then sometimes because of port aggregation. I got lucky (or unlucky depending on your ~views) in that my office uses nothing but Dell Powerconnect switches which all have the option to buy a fairly inexpensive module that you can plug 10G HBA's into. So I slapped together a nice 10G iSCSI backbone fairly quickly. Works like a champ too.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 12:26 |
|
|
cheese-cube posted:See that's what I thought the main reason would be: the ability to leverage existing switching equipment. However what about environments which require storage bandwidth greater than 1Gb but do not already have 10Gb switching equipment? Is that the point where deploying FC become cost-effective?
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 13:19 |
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:fairly inexpensive module that you can plug 10G HBA's into.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 13:26 |
|
|
Dell posted:Finally, please be advised that the best practices for the use of RAID 5 and RAID 50 on Dell EqualLogic arrays have changed. The changes to the RAID policy best practice recommendations are being made to offer enhanced protection for your data.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 16:53 |
|
|
What are considered "class 2" drives?
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:When your IT crew's never touched FC it makes a lot of sense to not get into it. Sorry I'm really not sure what your point is here as the same can be said for iSCSI. From a configuration perspective I've found FC much easier to configure. I've mainly worked with IBM SAN24B-4 FC switches and SAN06B-R MPRs which are basically re-branded Brocade 300 and 7800 series devices respectively and they are extremely easy to use (Great GUI, very logical CLI and Brocade provides great documentation). Once you understand the basic concepts of configuring a stable fabric you can easily scale that knowledge out. It only starts to get complicated when you start utilising more advanced features like FC-FC routing, fabric merging or FCIP. From my experience with iSCSI there are way more things that need to be considered in even simple deployments (i.e. VLAN tagging for iSCSI traffic segregation, link aggregation, MPIO drivers, jumbo frame support, etc.). Of course as I said a few posts ago my experience with iSCSI is tiny when compared to my FC experience so feel free to shoot me down.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 18:41 |
|
|
Even if you have no experience with iSCSI, you probably have experience with IP, so already you know something about iSCSI and nothing about FC. Unless you just came out of a pod from another planet or something. There's also the fact that IP speeds are growing faster than FC is. And FC is really an all or nothing proposition. You get an FC infrastructure or you don't. iSCSI you can connect to your existing network. Those "way more things" you mention about iSCSI are things people running IP networks already understand. I'm really not seeing why this is so difficult to grasp. It sounds like you're viewing it from the point of view of some enormous enterprise that can easily afford to build out an entire new infrastructure, where as most of the reasons for iSCSI come from the other end of the spectrum, small units dipping their feet in the waters of IP storage.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 18:54 |
|
|
cheese-cube posted:Sorry I'm really not sure what your point is here as the same can be said for iSCSI. iSCSI is much easier for most general purpose IT people to grasp. Fabrics and zoning aren't too tricky but there is a learning curve there. Additionally when you get into FC you're also getting into the business of ensuring that you've got solid HBA firmware, that you understand the vendor specific MPIO suite you're using, that you understand the OS specific tools provided to manage those HBAs. And it's still much less likely that you have anyone on staff who knows enough about FC at the protocol layer to troubleshoot difficult issues, while it's quite easy to find IP expertise. FC simply doesn't make sense for most IT shops from a management or performance perspective. When properly configured it's great because it just works seamlessly, but getting it to the "properly configured" point is a non-trivial task for most shops, on top of the added hardware cost.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 19:04 |
|
|
BnT posted:What are considered "class 2" drives? Nearline SAS I believe, stuff that's supposed to be used for bulk storage of infrequently accessed data.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 19:05 |
|
|
We moved from FC to 10g ISCSI to support a converged network/storage fabric. When we bought UCS, support for FCOE in the Nexus 5k series was basically nonexistent -- you could present storage to ports locally on the 5k, but you could not trunk into a 6140. Updates have made it better now, but that ship has sailed. It is also considerably cheaper. Switchport cost is relatively equal, but on the HBA side it's not really close. For my DC that isn't UCS, I have 19 ESX hosts. The first 7 we bought with dual 8gb FC HBAs for $1700 each including cables. The next 12 used 10g CNAs for $900, which eliminated 4 1gig network ports per host as well. The HBA cost savings paid for one of the 10g switches. Last, you can present storage direct to VMs, which lets you do all sorts of tricks with snapshotting. VMware's NPIV support sucks. The MS iscsi initiator does not. KS fucked around with this message at Aug 17, 2012 around 19:21 |
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 19:18 |
|
|
bort posted:We don't have any 5, but we're having to plan some conversion from RAID 50 to RAID 6. Luckily, that's online and we have the headroom. My current clients just finished installing a new Compellent and the first thing they did was force it to create raid 5 volumes  And these were for the Oracle database servers...I'm trying to persuade them to choke down the extra cost and use raid 10 but I dunno, they seem pretty entrenched.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 19:30 |
|
|
Compellent arrays do all writes to 10 and rewrite to RAID-5 in the background. They should be using RAID10/RAID-5 for 15k disks and RAID10-DM/RAID-6 for the bigger 7.2k disks per Compellent's best practices. You can't even specify just RAID-10 without turning on advanced mode, I believe. PM me if you'd like the doc, but they're right. KS fucked around with this message at Aug 17, 2012 around 19:51 |
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 19:46 |
|
|
Nebulis01 posted:Nearline SAS I believe, stuff that's supposed to be used for bulk storage of infrequently accessed data. And as for the RAID 5 on Compellent, it's very different since they assign RAID levels to blocks within a LUN, and those blocks may migrate to RAID 10 or various combinations of RAID5/6, depending on usage. RAID 5 is less attractive when you're configuring an actual disk/volume.
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 19:56 |
|
|
NippleFloss posted:iSCSI is much easier for most general purpose IT people to grasp. Fabrics and zoning aren't too tricky but there is a learning curve there. Additionally when you get into FC you're also getting into the business of ensuring that you've got solid HBA firmware, that you understand the vendor specific MPIO suite you're using, that you understand the OS specific tools provided to manage those HBAs. And it's still much less likely that you have anyone on staff who knows enough about FC at the protocol layer to troubleshoot difficult issues, while it's quite easy to find IP expertise. Yes + iSCSI is a lot cheaper, even in 10GbE flavor: show me a 24-port line-rate FC16 switch for $5-6k... ...did I mention that for IB you can get a 36-port FDR switch for ~$8k?
|
| # ? Aug 17, 2012 22:34 |
|
|
KS posted:Compellent arrays do all writes to 10 and rewrite to RAID-5 in the background. They should be using RAID10/RAID-5 for 15k disks and RAID10-DM/RAID-6 for the bigger 7.2k disks per Compellent's best practices. You can't even specify just RAID-10 without turning on advanced mode, I believe. This is odd then as they told me last week that they had to go in and specifically force it to use raid 5. I'll have a longer talk with them next week as this has my curiosity piqued now.
|
| # ? Aug 18, 2012 16:16 |
|
|
madsushi posted:NetApp's various host utilities (SnapDrive, VSC) will set these timeout values for you automatically. Yeah, that's possible, that EQL's HIT sets it at install...
|
| # ? Aug 20, 2012 16:05 |
|
|
KS posted:Compellent arrays do all writes to 10 and rewrite to RAID-5 in the background. Last December I was told it's RAID10 and RAID6...
|
| # ? Aug 20, 2012 16:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 12:49 |
|
|
How is NFS with Windows these days? Going to be Server 2008 R2 writing to some random unix based NAS. I should mention about 20,000 directories with 30,000 files with NTFS permissions. My first thought was to put a gun in my mouth when asked to look into this, which means someone has convinced my CTO this is viable.
|
| # ? Aug 21, 2012 03:16 |
|
