<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Network RAID10 - 2 node vs. 4 node? in StoreVirtual Storage</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797742#M2848</link>
    <description>Check latency between the sites, if its &amp;gt;1ms go for a 4 node multi-site cluster. Hosts will read from the "local" nodes.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I think HP recommend up to 4ms, buit this may slow down application response for writes.</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:03:28 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>aqualityplace</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-06-15T07:03:28Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Network RAID10 - 2 node vs. 4 node?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797738#M2844</link>
      <description>In a two-site multi-site SAN, what are the benefits of having a single 4 node cluster vs. 2 x 2 node clusters if all volumes are going to be Network RAID10 please?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The guests/initiators would be linux so there's no DSM MPIO and performance is the requirement over capacity.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;Paul</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:19:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797738#M2844</guid>
      <dc:creator>Paul Hutchings</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-10T13:19:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Network RAID10 - 2 node vs. 4 node?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797739#M2845</link>
      <description>I can give you one big benefit of having four nodes over two sets of two nodes.  If you take one node down, you only lose 25% of your IOPS.  If you go with the two sets of two nodes, when you take one node offline, you will lose 50% of your performance on that cluster instead of 25% of the performance of the cluster.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We have noticed VMware get very sluggish when we take one of our nodes offline on our two node clusters when they are heavily used.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;When we take a node offline on our four node clusters, no one can tell it is offline.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 01:55:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797739#M2845</guid>
      <dc:creator>kghammond</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-11T01:55:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Network RAID10 - 2 node vs. 4 node?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797740#M2846</link>
      <description>It depends also if you want/can use your ISL intersite-link only for replication trafic or also for active iSCSI sessions from all hosts... If bandwidth and latency permits go for the 4node setup, if ISL is a constraint go for the 2node solution...</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:08:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797740#M2846</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bart_Heungens</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-14T12:08:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Network RAID10 - 2 node vs. 4 node?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797741#M2847</link>
      <description>With a 4 Node Multisite setup, you have your data on both the sites.&lt;BR /&gt;Hence an acknowledgement needs to travel to and fro between the sites which in most cases is always higher than within the site.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;This adds an additional latency.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So I would suggest 2 node 2 clusters for performance.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:48:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797741#M2847</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jitun</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-15T03:48:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Network RAID10 - 2 node vs. 4 node?</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797742#M2848</link>
      <description>Check latency between the sites, if its &amp;gt;1ms go for a 4 node multi-site cluster. Hosts will read from the "local" nodes.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I think HP recommend up to 4ms, buit this may slow down application response for writes.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:03:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storevirtual-storage/network-raid10-2-node-vs-4-node/m-p/4797742#M2848</guid>
      <dc:creator>aqualityplace</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-15T07:03:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

