- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Re: EVA 4400 Disk Protection Level
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
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
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
11-03-2009 04:03 AM
11-03-2009 04:03 AM
I understand the fundamental workings of EVA, and I also understand that this so called "Protection Level" is not really a protection level, the VRAID level is this.
However I have double protection set at the moment on 8 1TB FATA disks. I really need some more space and am having a hard time justifying the purchase of new disks, when I can adjust the protection level to single and free up 2TB in a single hit...
Can someone explain what the technical difference is...
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-03-2009 05:33 AM
11-03-2009 05:33 AM
SolutionSingle/Double disk protection
Protection level influences availability
The protection level defines the number of disk failureâ auto reconstruction cycles that the array can accomplish without replacement of a failed disk. Following a disk failure, the controller re-creates the missing data from the parity information. The data is still available after the disk failure, but it is not protected from another disk failure until the reconstruction operation completes.
For example, â singleâ protection level provides continued operation in the event of 2 disk failures, assuming the reconstruction of the first failed disk completes before the second and so on till the number of the failed disk of 4 in the double disk protection.
None disk protection
For Vraid1 and Vraid5, protection level â noneâ provides resilience to a single disk failure; whereas Vraid6 provides resilience to a dual disk failure; however, this is not a best practice configuration. Vraid0 offers no protection from a disk failure.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-03-2009 07:04 AM
11-03-2009 07:04 AM
Re: EVA 4400 Disk Protection Level
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-04-2009 02:18 AM
11-04-2009 02:18 AM
Re: EVA 4400 Disk Protection Level
The EVA's virtualization DOES NOT add redundancy (some people I've talked to really believed this!). VRAID-0 does not provide protection against a disk drive failure.
Think of the "protection level" as some kind of "virtualized set of spare disks". The capacity is 'striped' across all disk drives in a disk group.
Level 0/none does not reserve any capacity.
Level 1/single reserves 2 times the size of the largest disk drive in the disk group.
Level 2/double reserves 4 times. I'm sure by now you understand that it just reserves more space for recovering redundancy, but it does not make your data "more safe". That level is really intended for systems which are not closely monitored and/or replacement parts do not come by quick (in my opinion).
2/4 times is due to the way the EVA stores VRAID-1 redundant information. It does always apply, even if you don't use VRAID-1 - but the EVA must care, because you could change your mind one day and completely fill a disk group with VRAID-1 vdisks.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-08-2010 05:48 AM
02-08-2010 05:48 AM
Re: EVA 4400 Disk Protection Level
Say we have a 50 disk group with a mix of vraid5 and vraid1 vdisks, we lose one disk and reconstruction starts. We then lose a second disk, will we lose all vraid5 and vraid1 luns?
Rightly or wrongly, my understanding is that the group is split into smaller storage sets and you may be able to survive concurrent failures in different storage sets, or different vraid1 couples.
Thanks
Adrian
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-08-2010 06:03 AM
02-08-2010 06:03 AM
Re: EVA 4400 Disk Protection Level
The problem is:
You (and the EVA) don't know in advance which disk drive fails during the reconstruction.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-08-2010 06:28 AM
02-08-2010 06:28 AM
Re: EVA 4400 Disk Protection Level
My personal thought on a 8 FATA drive disk group would be to set single protection but deploy your data in VRAID6 - just make sure you can replace a failed disk quickly (24 hours, in my opinion) so you can get your full redundant space cushion back.
My question to those with more knowledge than I would be what happens using VRAID6 if you do get the second disk failing before the first has completed reconstruction - I'm assuming the data would be safe, but would you still be operational as you might not have enough space to do a proper rebuild without the replacment of the failed disks?
As an aside, if this is your only disk group, you might want to take a more conservative approach, as FATA drives are more prone to failure under a high workload than Fiberchannel drives. If the disk group is mainly for archival purposes with low I/O, then I would not be as worried. I can't say exactly what low and high would be.