- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- HPVM advice sought
Categories
Company
Local Language
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
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
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- 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
тАО02-14-2008 04:23 AM
тАО02-14-2008 04:23 AM
Each guest would have between 300G and 800G of disk space and there would be 8 guests on each host.
Another question I can't see an answer for is - does the VM support access to SAN attached tape drives?
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 04:57 AM
тАО02-14-2008 04:57 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
http://docs.hp.com/en/vse.html#HP%20Integrity%20Virtual%20Machines
These may help you.
As for the SAN attached Tapes, no these are not currently supported
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 05:02 AM
тАО02-14-2008 05:02 AM
SolutionFrom my perspective, if an app is sufficiently IO intensive to require load balancing across 2 modern (2 or 4Gb) HBAs, then it might not be a good candidate for a VM anyway. That said with the latest releases we do have AVIO which goes some way to speeding up IO in a VM so maybe... I wouldn't want to get tied down, but I would say if you expect to do a lot of sequential IO then go for disks rather than LVs. Presumably if you have a HDS disk array you'll need HDLM rather than Secure Path?
Does the VM support access to SAN tape drives - yes, but only 1 VM at a time. Basically you have to used the tape as an 'attached IO device' (see the manual), and add/remove the tape device to each VM as pre/post backup steps.
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 05:07 AM
тАО02-14-2008 05:07 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
Will have to check some more
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 05:36 AM
тАО02-14-2008 05:36 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 05:39 AM
тАО02-14-2008 05:39 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 06:08 AM
тАО02-14-2008 06:08 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
You will find in "Best Practices for Integrity Virtual Machines" that raw LUNs have better performance than Logical volume. We can understand that, but ...
- from HP Hotliners at second level, it seems that performances with LVM as virtual storage is as good as raw devices and sometimes better. It was with HP VM 3.0 and of course it was not an HP's official advice ;-)
- I have moved some of my clients from raw devices as virtual storage to LVM as virtual storage without any degradation.
- Raw devices has several defects due to the fact that no hardware informations are transmitted to the guest : so you can't have mirror, nor pvlink inside the VM.
- I have experimented really bad things with autopath (correctly configured !) and raw devices as virtual storage : in a summary I had 2 active fabrics, decided to change FC cables one by one and waiting between each change for everything to return to normal state ... result was all VMs were frozed. Support told me they had that kind of problem on other sites, IMHO they had no good explanation the cause, but they clearly said that there is no problem like this with LVM ...
So I think I will definitively forget raw devices as virtual storage.
An other thing is to consider working with HP Integrity VM 3.5 : HP (in a non official way again ;-) agree that they have some difficulties with IO on version 3.0. If you take a look at CPU utilization inside the guest, you will probably see a high cpu utilization under %SYS (sar -u 5 100). This new version is said to have a great impact on that.
And no, San attached tape are not supported.
Regards Eric
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 06:13 AM
тАО02-14-2008 06:13 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
See page 13 of http://docs.hp.com/en/T2767-90033/T2767-90033.pdf
Version 3.0 extended this to other guests, see page 13 of http://docs.hp.com/en/T2767-90076/T2767-90076.pdf
But to my knowledge this is still only for locally attached devices, SAN attached tape support is a possible future. I will, however, check further to get thios confirmed or to correct a possible error on my part
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 06:25 AM
тАО02-14-2008 06:25 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
One advantage of configuring raw devices as virtual storage is that you can easly move from virtual to physical and from physical to virtual. With LVM in the host + LVM in the guest it is not possible.
This, plus trying to have the best performance with LVM as virtual storage, give me the idea to configure storage in the VM WITHOUT LVM for all of the virtual disks but vg00.
In other words, in the VM Guest I don't create FS over LV but directly on virtual raw devices. Advantages are :
- Better performance than having one LVM structure in the guest over one LVM structure in the host : I have just one LVM structure to cross in the host.
- Portability of all FS, but vg00, between physical and virtual environments. For vg00 I restore it from an ignite image.
Regards
Eric
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-14-2008 09:24 AM
тАО02-14-2008 09:24 AM
Re: HPVM advice sought
JohnK