topic Re: ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM in Operating System - HP-UX

ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM

Brian Myners — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:38:49 GMT

Are there any issues with using these two products together. There appeared to be some in the past. Do these problems still apply?

Re: ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM

Steven E. Protter — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:43:28 GMT

I have heard of no issues, so long as your system is properly patched.

I just spoke to a Veritas database instructor who was asked this very question in class. Her reply was my first sentence.

I still wonder with the nice filesystems HP acquired from Compaq how much further down the Veritas road HP is going. On the other hand, there is very tight integration between HP-UX and Veritas' various product offerings.

SEP

Re: ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM

Pete Randall — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:48:28 GMT

Andrew,

Given the uncertainty concerning HP's direction with VxVM that Steven mentioned and I also feel exists, why bother with it? It offers little, if any, more than standard LVM, with MirrorDisk/UX and Online JFS, does. I think you'd be taking on an unnecessary conversion that may well need to be undone later.

Just my .02!

Pete

Re: ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM

Brian Myners — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:26:21 GMT

Would you feel that the DMP in VVM is worth the pain of going over to it? Or does constructing your volume groups to alternate between controllers a good enough frig to keep up with DMP?

Also, what about re-sync times (going sligtly off thread here)? Is VVM any faster than LVM?

Re: ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM

Bernhard Mueller — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:35:11 GMT

Andrew,

as for DMP:
in SG Clusters you have mostly FC disks these days, so the throughput is at least 1GB/s on the bus and Ultra160 SCSI is not much less.

I have never setup a Cluster with VxVM but from my understanding the VX VG has to be imported on the adoptive node at failover each time, which might take considerably longer that LVM activating a cluster VG.

Regards,
Bernhard

Re: ServiceGuard and Veritas VVM

melvyn burnard — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:36:00 GMT

There are distinct disadvantages over using VxVM disk groups rather than LVM.
Firstly, unless you use CVM (and pay the license fee for this) the disk grouop can only belong to one node at a time, and when a package switches, the dg must first have it's node ownership cleared, and hten be imported to the adoptive noe.
This can be slow, and times of 15 minutes or more have been sen on large disk groupss and packages.
There are also ohter restrictions.
As far as DMP is concerned, hte base product has Active/passive dmp already there, but to have active/active I believe you have to pay yet another license fee.
Although this is slightly old, you may want a read of:
http://docs.hp.com/hpux/pdf/B3936-90048.pdf and hten read hte later Release Notes and Managing MC/Serviceguard manuals at http://docs.hp.com/hpux/ha

HTH