- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Re: EVA 4400 vs 6400 vs 8400
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
тАО08-12-2009 03:14 PM
тАО08-12-2009 03:14 PM
The eva4400 appears to support faster FC throughput to the SAN, support more LUNs, and of course be cheaper. It also can still integrate into CV management software we already use (own a eva8000). Also, it is supported by SVSP which we are moving to.
The cons appear to be total capacity (not an issue as we are under 40TB even with growth). Also, it appears to have far less cache.
So, what should we go with? Cost is a factor, but please put it at the bottom of the list for now.
Is it better to get several 4400's instead of one 8400? How does the 6400 factor in? What about overall performance? We are going to be booting ~40 vmware images from SAN and will use several LUNs and the array for all vmware storage (from a C7000 Blade environment).
What else am i missing or not realizing? Why wouldnt I go with the 4400?
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-12-2009 03:17 PM
тАО08-12-2009 03:17 PM
Re: EVA 4400 vs 6400 vs 8400
Again we have probably 20TB right now of data, and want everything (file shares, vmware images, etc) all stored on the SAN.
Is the 4400 just not fast enough?
We are planning to put in 4 disk enclosures fully populated with 450GB 15k FC disks.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-13-2009 02:23 AM
тАО08-13-2009 02:23 AM
SolutionEVA6400: Two loops, 9 enclosures each, 8GB cache, 8 host ports
EVA8400: Three loops, 9 enclosures each, 14 or 22GB cache, 8 host ports
In the EVA4400 you can purchase the model with the integrated 8 Gb SAN switches, but internally the controllers are connected to the switches at 4 Gb.
So the EVA6400 and 8400 have more bandwidth for the SAN and more cache.
EVA6400 and 8400 support 2048 LUNs, EVA4400 only 1024
The firmware is the same, so the rest of the features are quite similar.
The performance while booting several VM will depend on the number of random I/Os the disks can do. This is proportional to the number of disks on the disk group.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-13-2009 07:27 AM
тАО08-13-2009 07:27 AM
Re: EVA 4400 vs 6400 vs 8400
Do the loops constitute just how many enclosures it can support, or does it also up performance?
Also, is there any reason in the 8400 I should get 22GB cache vs the 14?
Do enclosures have to come in pairs?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-13-2009 07:41 AM
тАО08-13-2009 07:41 AM
Re: EVA 4400 vs 6400 vs 8400
In the marketing sessions we've got told that the 22GB cache is mainly for, well, marketing.
I don't think that enclosures will have to be configured in pairs, but it does help the EVA to optimize the disk layout for VRAID-1 (although even the old EVA-3000 could separate the mirror pairs on 3 enclosures).