topic Re: Disk subsystem choice in Operating System - HP-UX

Disk subsystem choice

Victor BERRIDGE — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:40:22 GMT

Tomorrow I will have to find GOOD arguments on why I want a HDS 9910-60 ( original XP512) rather than a IBM ESS F20, have any of you any great suggestions?
(IBM will be present tomorrow and my boss thinks blue...)

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Stefan Farrelly — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:43:15 GMT

Is the IBM disk frame fully integrated with HP's diagnostic software ?? Will STM see it properly and be able to interrogate it, test it, log it etc ? I have big doubts all this functionality will work. Whereas a disk subsystem sold by HP will no doubt work fully with all HP's tools.

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Victor BERRIDGE — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:48:13 GMT

Thanks Stephan for replying so fast, I dont have much time to prepare myself,IBM will be here tomorrow at 10a.m....
Its now 18:45 and I should have finished my day...

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Paula J Frazer-Campbell — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:50:24 GMT

Hi

Apart from HP being able to see/interogate it, will HP support It?

There is a lot of expertise on HP disk systems/Hp servers but how much on big blue and a HP mix.

Does he really want youcompany to be "Testing" the Hp /IBM mix.

Just a few ideas

HTH and best of luck

Paula

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Dave Wherry — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:18:08 GMT

Taking Paula's comment a little further. I just hate a mixed vendor environment. If you have HP hosts I think you should have HP disks. Less fingerpointing if there is a problem.
I've run HP hosts with a couple of EMC frames when they were friendly partners. There were issues then that HP would not support their own kernel if we used EMC's Powerpath product because it modified the kernel. Now that they are more competing with each other than partnering, I wouldn't want that situation.
Go XP!

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Victor BERRIDGE — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:35:20 GMT

The point is:
I have a N4000 that is doing nothing for more than a month (not installed => no disks), I promised to migrate an SP2 the day I have a subsystem that could do an alternate link under aix, we also have an OS390 some SUN and some DEC-ux and more AIXses...
I have always used HDS 57XX 58XX subsystems that are very fine littles subsystems only now I seems to make sence to get something more big and dynamicaly manageable...
My point of view doesnt count much without good reasons, for my superiors thought they think blue, say that if I did things my way, here we have mostly HP and some SUN and only HDS subsystems (correct, but they forget who's the poor devil having to deal with the system when things go wrong, so why do I prefer HP and HDS?...)

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Michael Lampi — Tue, 07 Nov 2000 22:46:52 GMT

The XP512 is the only storage device on the market with a 100% (not just 99.999%) data availability guarantee, at least as it is sold by Hitachi Data Systems. The IBM does not have this guarantee.

The I/O performance of the XP512 is head and shoulders higher than anything anyone else has, with 32 host Fibrechannel ports. The IBM system is nowhere near this.

The XP512 internal drive channels are dual ported Fibrechannels. The IBM still uses SSA.

The XP512 "phone home" capability informs service when a drive is starting to have troubles, so that it can be replaced *before* it actually fails.

There are many more advantages to the XP512,
but you would be better off going to the HDS web site for that information.

From what I have heard, the only advantage IBM has is that they have warehouses full of their "Shark" storage system, and due to lack of demand are practically giving them away.

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Victor BERRIDGE — Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:47:11 GMT

Thanks for your replies, Im off now for the fight...

Best of all
Victor

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Stefan Farrelly — Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:48:16 GMT

Victor - lets us know how you get on please.

Cheers,

Stefan

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Victor BERRIDGE — Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:52:33 GMT

The new HDS9910 will be sold by HP as a XP48 (XP512 architecture but can contain only 48disks, so I learned today the meaning of the number after XP...).
For Stephan
IBM were great this morning, you should know that SSA is far better technology than FC-AL since FC-AL is sequenced....
My main point was the number of connections:
Sharsk-ESS 16
HDS-9910 (XP48) 24
HDS-9960 (XP512) 32
IBM FLash copy=>limited to 1 active copy
Lack of support for sync.

HDS ShadowImage => up to 512 copies
support forward-reverse resync
Each copy is independant...

HDS has 73Gb/1020 RPM disks, not IBM...

Im going to bed...

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Stefan Farrelly — Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:16:37 GMT

Thanks for the rundown Victor. So I take it youre buying the HP ?

And I dont know what you mean by;
"SSA is far better technology than FC-AL since FC-AL is sequenced.... "

Re: Disk subsystem choice

Victor BERRIDGE — Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:15:45 GMT

Hi Stephan,
IBM dixit...because on ssa you can have 4 concurrent access (r or W) which means in mixed R/W up to 8 concurrent access... again IBM dixit

I will let you know next week, but it seems we should be going on HDS9910 (XP48) (budget...) then upgrade next year to HDS9960 (XP512)

Best regards
Victor