- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- HPE EVA Storage
- >
- Re: EVA4400 best practice versus reality
HPE EVA Storage
1753727
Members
4638
Online
108799
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-29-2008 06:04 AM
тАО12-29-2008 06:04 AM
Hello Guru's
I have an EVA4400 with 62x300GB FC and 8x1TB FATA disk. They are configured in two disk groups one with all the RC and one with all the FATA per best practices. I am adding 34x450GB FC disk (removing FATA because they turned out to be less useful than originally expected). The application is oracle 10g with raw volumes utilizing oracle ASM.
If I follow best practice I should create a second disk group with all the 450GB because they are the same size and speed. However, I understand that when it comes to performance it is best to have as many spindles as possible. I would prefer to put all the disk in one group and let the EVA work it out but I am curious if there are users out there who have tried mixing disks within one disk group and found it to be troublesome. I look forward to hearing from you.
Gerald
I have an EVA4400 with 62x300GB FC and 8x1TB FATA disk. They are configured in two disk groups one with all the RC and one with all the FATA per best practices. I am adding 34x450GB FC disk (removing FATA because they turned out to be less useful than originally expected). The application is oracle 10g with raw volumes utilizing oracle ASM.
If I follow best practice I should create a second disk group with all the 450GB because they are the same size and speed. However, I understand that when it comes to performance it is best to have as many spindles as possible. I would prefer to put all the disk in one group and let the EVA work it out but I am curious if there are users out there who have tried mixing disks within one disk group and found it to be troublesome. I look forward to hearing from you.
Gerald
Solved! Go to Solution.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-29-2008 07:31 AM
тАО12-29-2008 07:31 AM
Solution
Hi,
1. yes from the performance point of view it is not the optimum (not recommended) to have different sizes HDDs in one DG, also the disk protection (spare HDD) will be in the sizes of the "bigger" physical disks. However it is supported.
2. for Oracle, there is always the best practice to put redo and archive logs to the RAID1 with mirrors on the separate LUNs
1. yes from the performance point of view it is not the optimum (not recommended) to have different sizes HDDs in one DG, also the disk protection (spare HDD) will be in the sizes of the "bigger" physical disks. However it is supported.
2. for Oracle, there is always the best practice to put redo and archive logs to the RAID1 with mirrors on the separate LUNs
the pain is one part of the reality
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-29-2008 11:22 AM
тАО12-29-2008 11:22 AM
Re: EVA4400 best practice versus reality
There isn't so much difference between 300 and 450 so that the larger disk does not draw much more I/O compared to other disk sizes, but you might silently lose disk group capacity over time if the EVA starts to pair 300/450GB disk drives during maintenance operations. The pairing is done to predefine the VRAID-1 members. In that case the capacity of the smaller disk drive is used for the pair.
The additional capacity required for 450GB disk drives in the group would be very little (300GB) compared to the total group size:
33,900GB - that is less than 1%.
The additional capacity required for 450GB disk drives in the group would be very little (300GB) compared to the total group size:
33,900GB - that is less than 1%.
.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-29-2008 12:48 PM
тАО12-29-2008 12:48 PM
Re: EVA4400 best practice versus reality
Thanks for the reply,
I think i will create a second disk group as the possibility of losing space could be an issue since we will have the maximum spindle count on this EVA. Thanks.
Gerald
I think i will create a second disk group as the possibility of losing space could be an issue since we will have the maximum spindle count on this EVA. Thanks.
Gerald
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP