<?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 Requested level: single hids 2 drives in HPE EVA Storage</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441966#M38634</link>
    <description>Having just installed 10 1 Tb drives on an EVA4100 and configuring them into a single disk group, I was suprised to seee that the avaliable capacity was about 7.5 Tb with no vdisks assigned.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The disk group is configured with drive failure protection level "single" and occupancy alarm at 90%.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;This combination of factors seem strange to me.  When I change the requested level to "none" I immediately get back almost 2 Tb (2 disks) worth of space.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So what gives here?   If I configure raid 5 AND I have an occupancy alarm level of 10%, why does command view ALSO hide 2 drives from me?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Also, what is wrong with making the requested level none if I am careful to observe occupancy levels?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;thanks&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:26:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jeffrey S. Jalbert</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-06-17T20:26:18Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Requested level: single hids 2 drives</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441966#M38634</link>
      <description>Having just installed 10 1 Tb drives on an EVA4100 and configuring them into a single disk group, I was suprised to seee that the avaliable capacity was about 7.5 Tb with no vdisks assigned.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The disk group is configured with drive failure protection level "single" and occupancy alarm at 90%.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;This combination of factors seem strange to me.  When I change the requested level to "none" I immediately get back almost 2 Tb (2 disks) worth of space.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So what gives here?   If I configure raid 5 AND I have an occupancy alarm level of 10%, why does command view ALSO hide 2 drives from me?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Also, what is wrong with making the requested level none if I am careful to observe occupancy levels?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;thanks&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:26:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441966#M38634</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jeffrey S. Jalbert</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-17T20:26:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Requested level: single hids 2 drives</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441967#M38635</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;single disk protection means 2 virtual spares, it is not a good idea not having them (none) because then immediately after the disk failure the whole disk group becomes into the degraded state. If you have 2 virtual spares, the controller firmware automaticaly ungroup the failed disk from the disk group and the disk group is again ready to survive the one disk failure....</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:09:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441967#M38635</guid>
      <dc:creator>IBaltay</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-17T21:09:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Requested level: single hids 2 drives</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441968#M38636</link>
      <description>hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; take a look at this thread , it should help explain those numbers.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1263523&amp;amp;admit=109447626+1245284945476+28353475" target="_blank"&gt;http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1263523&amp;amp;admit=109447626+1245284945476+28353475&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;hth&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:36:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441968#M38636</guid>
      <dc:creator>marsh_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-17T23:36:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Requested level: single hids 2 drives</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441969#M38637</link>
      <description>O.K.  I understrand the idea of spares, but with the spares being reserved, why should I be concerned about occupancy levels?  Why not just run it up to close to 100%?</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:05:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441969#M38637</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jeffrey S. Jalbert</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-18T06:05:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Requested level: single hids 2 drives</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441970#M38638</link>
      <description>to have space for the metadata operations like the leveling, group/ungroup, etc.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:22:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/hpe-eva-storage/requested-level-single-hids-2-drives/m-p/4441970#M38638</guid>
      <dc:creator>IBaltay</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-18T06:22:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

