- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- EVA4000: Disk Sub System
Disk Enclosures
1752822
Members
4143
Online
108789
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
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
юдл
back
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
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- 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
тАО07-02-2006 11:14 PM
тАО07-02-2006 11:14 PM
We have two EVA sites, with two HSV200 controllers and one disk enclosure (12x146Gb) each site.
Q1: Is there any estimation for performance difference between sync. and async. write modes for the DR Group.
Q2: Is there any way to priorities disk traffic for different applications, connected to EVA? i.e. we have core banking system DB (Oracle), also file server for Terminal Server farm, also MS Exchange mailstore/logfiles. Let's say we connect them all to EVA. We don't want that exchange peak performance will cause lag for corebanking system. How we can avoid this? Or this is to be done by splitting disk array into different disk groups, and separate mission critical application with it's own disk groups?
Q3: Can one disk group contains disk from different disk enclosures? What is the limit of disk/enclosures quantity for one disk group?
Q1: Is there any estimation for performance difference between sync. and async. write modes for the DR Group.
Q2: Is there any way to priorities disk traffic for different applications, connected to EVA? i.e. we have core banking system DB (Oracle), also file server for Terminal Server farm, also MS Exchange mailstore/logfiles. Let's say we connect them all to EVA. We don't want that exchange peak performance will cause lag for corebanking system. How we can avoid this? Or this is to be done by splitting disk array into different disk groups, and separate mission critical application with it's own disk groups?
Q3: Can one disk group contains disk from different disk enclosures? What is the limit of disk/enclosures quantity for one disk group?
Solved! Go to Solution.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-03-2006 02:21 AM
тАО07-03-2006 02:21 AM
Solution
Hello Arman:
Q1: The performance will vary depending of the I/O rate, the distancy, the link and the bandwidht. For very fast links at small distances, the performance will not suffer. There is a document that may help you "hp StorageWorks continuous access EVA replication performance estimator V1.1". See the eva documentation site.
Q2: Normally, EVAs are capable of handle large I/O because of the virtutalization technology. You cannot specify a priority for the disks. The disk group separation could help if you separate random from sequential access I/O patterns into different disk groups, but normally, when more disk on the disk groups, the better the performance. You should do performance test on your own environment.
Q3: A disk group can contain all disks from all disk enclosures supported by the EVA with a minimum of 8.
Q1: The performance will vary depending of the I/O rate, the distancy, the link and the bandwidht. For very fast links at small distances, the performance will not suffer. There is a document that may help you "hp StorageWorks continuous access EVA replication performance estimator V1.1". See the eva documentation site.
Q2: Normally, EVAs are capable of handle large I/O because of the virtutalization technology. You cannot specify a priority for the disks. The disk group separation could help if you separate random from sequential access I/O patterns into different disk groups, but normally, when more disk on the disk groups, the better the performance. You should do performance test on your own environment.
Q3: A disk group can contain all disks from all disk enclosures supported by the EVA with a minimum of 8.
Por que hacerlo dificil si es posible hacerlo facil? - Why do it the hard way, when you can do it the easy way?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-03-2006 02:22 AM
тАО07-03-2006 02:22 AM
Re: EVA4000: Disk Sub System
Q1: Almost entirely dependent on the nature and latency of your WAN link between the sites.
Q2: There isn't a direct mechanism for prioritizing one server's access to an EVA over another's. So one might consider creating a separate disk group for "special" applications, but with only 12 spindles you don't have a choice. The minimum size for a disk group is 8 spindles so you don't have enough for two. Even if you had the necessary 16 spindles, creating two disk groups of 8 would really be shooting yourself in the foot for reasons of both performance and capacity. More spindles per disk group / fewer disk groups is nearly always the best answer when setting up an EVA.
Q3: Yes - a disk group can contain disks from multiple enclosures. For an EVA4000 the maximum is 4 enclosures with a total of 56 spindles in a single disk group.
Q2: There isn't a direct mechanism for prioritizing one server's access to an EVA over another's. So one might consider creating a separate disk group for "special" applications, but with only 12 spindles you don't have a choice. The minimum size for a disk group is 8 spindles so you don't have enough for two. Even if you had the necessary 16 spindles, creating two disk groups of 8 would really be shooting yourself in the foot for reasons of both performance and capacity. More spindles per disk group / fewer disk groups is nearly always the best answer when setting up an EVA.
Q3: Yes - a disk group can contain disks from multiple enclosures. For an EVA4000 the maximum is 4 enclosures with a total of 56 spindles in a single disk group.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-04-2006 05:47 PM
тАО07-04-2006 05:47 PM
Re: EVA4000: Disk Sub System
Thanks.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP