- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- XP 128 Open-V Versus Open-E
Disk Enclosures
1753772
Members
5292
Online
108799
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
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
Discussions
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
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
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
06-30-2005 08:30 AM
06-30-2005 08:30 AM
XP 128 Open-V Versus Open-E
We have an XP128 using OPEN-E disks and are thinking of converting to OPEN-V disks in order to better manage the size of our disks. We know the size of volumes we need and we want to create say 10gig OPEN-V disks in all the diskgroups and than create a LUSE volume across all disk groups. Has anyone have any performance concerns going to this type of setup. We are also considering putting all the OS stuff on one Diskgroup consisting of four 36gig disks.
Is anyone using Tru64 clusters with the XP boxes?
Thanks,
Howard
Is anyone using Tru64 clusters with the XP boxes?
Thanks,
Howard
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-30-2005 12:16 PM
06-30-2005 12:16 PM
Re: XP 128 Open-V Versus Open-E
If this is a OS disk I would put it on a local mirrored disks. If this is an application or database I would put it on the san and make my lun sizes as small as possible spread evenly and widely across all the controllers, and I think that the customer OPENV sizes.
Small lun sizes will give you big advantes by saving space, and speed by allowing your frames firmware to spot readaheads better because it is less likely to have to requests hitting the same lun at the same time :). It will also be nice to have another handy dandy lun the same size to add when you later need to expand your VG :)
THe bad of that is carpel tunnel and running out of addressing for large disks assignments :)
Use LVM striping or equivelent :).
Plan your layout of your frame carefully before day one so you dont have major groups in your company impacting each other.
Be creative. IE putting your BCV if you use them on the middle of the spindle and your data on the outside where its faster.
In general though I am not a fan of custom lun sizes that differ from each other on the frame. I like to take full advantage of the bandwith and read ahead with small luns striped strategically across all the fibers from the getgo. Then assign luns in order from the various groups that have been preassigned to differnt orgs. In reality though there will always be some tradeoffs you will have to deal with.
This link might help some with your LUSE
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=779561
Small lun sizes will give you big advantes by saving space, and speed by allowing your frames firmware to spot readaheads better because it is less likely to have to requests hitting the same lun at the same time :). It will also be nice to have another handy dandy lun the same size to add when you later need to expand your VG :)
THe bad of that is carpel tunnel and running out of addressing for large disks assignments :)
Use LVM striping or equivelent :).
Plan your layout of your frame carefully before day one so you dont have major groups in your company impacting each other.
Be creative. IE putting your BCV if you use them on the middle of the spindle and your data on the outside where its faster.
In general though I am not a fan of custom lun sizes that differ from each other on the frame. I like to take full advantage of the bandwith and read ahead with small luns striped strategically across all the fibers from the getgo. Then assign luns in order from the various groups that have been preassigned to differnt orgs. In reality though there will always be some tradeoffs you will have to deal with.
This link might help some with your LUSE
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=779561
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