|
Wow, maybe this is best for another thread but I just came in to rescue someone from a SAN disaster. Apparently, they had two Storage Arrays with Remote Mirroring capability. The data was on Array 1 and the matching lun on Array 2 was new. A "Create Remote Mirror" command was issued from Array 2. Apparently, they thought that it would realize that the lun on Array 2 was empty and copy the data from Array 1 onto Array 2. poo poo, I couldn't even do a data resuce. Oh well, it was a non-critical system and they had backups from not long ago.
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Spoon Daddy, who do you work for? My employer just had a SAN failure the other day that managed to take down our backbone for all of our west coast customers. We had 60 customers down at one time, and it took over 12 hours to bring them all back up. I'm working for a startup in the medical industry. Thankfully, our failure had zero impact on production data. Only our training data was hosed. Thankfully, it turns out to have had a minimal impact but holy poo poo I had a pit in my stomach when I read that "oops" email.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 20:21
|
|
|
Anyone have NetApp V62xx series filers in production today and how many?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
adorai posted:If your budget provides for it, I honestly wouldn't consider anything other than netapp.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Nomex posted:A well known issue you say? Please tell me. I just finished setting up 6 new 62xx HA pairs at work, so I'll want to avoid that bug. Ask them about "PCI NMI" issues.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
I'm about to start a new job and the just bought EMC VNX 5500s. As a hardcore netapp guy I'm getting ready for fun. Quick questions. What Netapp model(s) does the 5500 compare to? Is MPFS really that much better than NFS? The folks at the new place were gushing about it but they know very little about storage and so I take their enthusiasm with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
madsushi posted:MPFS is an EMC thing, you have an agent that talks with your EMC SAN and requests a file, the EMC SAN gives you the blocks where that file is at, and your agent goes and gets those blocks via iSCSI or FC. The idea is that you're serving up files (like with NFS/CIFS) but that they're retrieved by the block via a block protocol which has less overhead than NFS/CIFS. My experience with traditional NAS is that with 10Gb, you could get great performance. I've seen Netapps serve 700 MB/s to individual database clients. I see the value of MPFS in an HPC environment but I'm just running in a traditional enterprise environment. Though honestly, in an HPC environment my first instinct is infiniband but my experience there is limited.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
Vanilla posted:As someone mentioned above the chatter goes across traditional CIFS/NFS but the file is provided over Fibre Channel. I've seen it used for HPC, video editing and even where there are millions of small files. The hiring manager is my old boss. He just got there 2 weeks ago and had little input on the decision. From what I can gather from him, the most likely reason they went with it is because they know very little about storage and it sounded cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Vanilla posted:Hmmm MPFS isn't really the kind of thing that is sold off hand. It takes some setting up, has a limited support matrix (agents) and a set number of use cases. The MPFS may just be for one or two systems, the rest of the NAS may well be just vanilla NFS. Entertainment (not doing video). but its just standard enterprise stuff such as exchange, databases(mssql and oracle), etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Unless you're doing big data analytics, fluid modeling, or some other type of work that is extremely IO intensive with high concurrency I truly can't see the point. Sure, it might make your CIFS access faster, but who cares if it takes 2ms to open a document instead of 15ms? Yeah, it didn't make sense. Got more info, apparently it was a hosed up decision made exclusively by the database team with no input from syseng.  Oh well, I'll just spend time learning it and if its a horrible time suck they can hire a dedicated engineer for it or get something else.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Powdered Toast Man posted:[. One person brought a $700 million company to a grinding halt. If what you describe is true, once there is a light at the end of the tunnel, this guy needs to be let go.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
Powdered Toast Man posted:Uh...yeah, about that. We actually have a Netapp FAS3420 with two shelves. It's being used for our "really" mission critical stuff, but originally that stuff was on Reldata hardware as well. Depends on cooling but in general, they aren't quiet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:That sounds very low. Should be closer to 10,000 IOPS for 72 15k disks. That 10,000 is the raw disk capacity(standard approximation is 150 IOPs per 15k drive). With NVRAM cache layer writes should be higher though workload will dicate that. For reads, Flex cards can raise the bar even higher.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:The NVRAM cache layer doesn't change the sustained performance characteristics of the disks. Ultimately all writes must hit disk (well, very nearly all writes) so putting cache in the middle does not increase sustained performance, it merely provides some smoothing for bursty I/O and allows writes to be acknowledged without waiting for them to reach disk. Yeah, you are correct. I completely bungled that one. You'll never exceed your physical IOPs with NVRAM but you really do limit the impact of disk writes especially when disks that are not at full capacity. The NVRAM indeed acts like a journal so that when a write comes in, it's acknowledged once its written to NVRAM(faster) rather than wait til its written to disk(slower). On the other hand, the Flex cache for reads can really improve your IOPs. I've seen as much as 20k IOPs offloaded to Flex cache on a 6080.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:gently caress you system manager Heh, this is why I only use the CLI to manage filers. System Manager has limited usefulness compared to CLI.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:[ they don't have the problems we've had with unannounced network maintenance oh god this, so many times over. I had to fight hard for a seperate 10g switch infrastructure because our networks guys insisted that converged networks were the way to go. I was proven right on several occaisions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Wompa164 posted:Would you minding sharing your quote for the FAS3250 w/ 100TBs? I'm trying to get a feel for pricing for my current project. edit: get a quote from oracle's zfs and tell netapp the #. They gave me 5 points right off the bat. Oracle is in land grab mode so they are practically giving away their zfs appliances. this in turn scares the poo poo out of netapp since oracle is positioning themselves as a netapp killer. IMO netapp is much more mature and feature rich. Oracle has a lot of "in 6 months" features. spoon daddy fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 10:52
|
|