- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
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
тАО10-22-2008 07:38 AM
тАО10-22-2008 07:38 AM
Our options are snapclone or mirrorclone and i would like to know which one is less likely to affect performance. Only one vdisk will be done at a time, outside of normal hours. Some are up to (and over) 2GB in size but none are CA'd.
For the snapclone method we would mark vdisk as write-through, shutdown server, create snapclone to container in new group, unpresent orginal vdisk and then present snapclone to the server before restarting server. Then we can leave snapclone to complete overnight or weekend.
With a mirrorclone we have to create a mirrorclone to new disk group, wait for the mirrorclone to complete, shutdown server, detach & fracture mirrorclone, unpresent original vdisk and present mirrorclone before starting up server.
Is there a preferred method? - is either option better in terms of performance or time to complete??
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 07:45 AM
тАО10-22-2008 07:45 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
maybe the less performance demanding method is simply ungrouping the HDD from the original and grouping them into the new DG
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 07:55 AM
тАО10-22-2008 07:55 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 07:58 AM
тАО10-22-2008 07:58 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 08:13 AM
тАО10-22-2008 08:13 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 08:18 AM
тАО10-22-2008 08:18 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
a) the more spindles the more perf in the DG
b) 70 is not enough to be affraid of any perf degradation yet...
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-2787ENW.pdf?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 08:35 AM
тАО10-22-2008 08:35 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
I would not worry about a leveling process decreasing the performance of the disk group by so much that it effects your users in a bad way.
Generally speaking, Leveling is a background process on the controllers that people ("users") don't even notice.
Have you had a bad experience with a leveling process before?
Steven
HP Master ASE, Storage, Servers, and Clustering
MCSE (NT 4.0, W2K, W2K3)
VCP (ESX2, Vi3, vSphere4, vSphere5, vSphere 6.x)
RHCE
NPP3 (Nutanix Platform Professional)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 08:44 AM
тАО10-22-2008 08:44 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 08:52 AM
тАО10-22-2008 08:52 AM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 01:03 PM
тАО10-22-2008 01:03 PM
Re: snapclone or mirrorclone
The EVA is designed to work best with larger disk groups that are equally divisible by 8. So, by breaking up your 168 (21 RSS's of 8 drives each) into 2 disk groups of 73 and 95 you are actually forcing your EVA to run slower. The disk group with 73 will create 8 RSS's of 8 drives and 1 RSS's of 9 disks. The disk group with 95 will create 11 RSS's of 8 drives and 1 RSs with 7 drives. These partial RSS's consisting of 7 and 9 drives will cause a performance issue.
Best thing for you to do is:
1. 33 of your new drives to the disk group with 95 disk in it.
2. remove one drive from your disk group with 73 in it and add it along with the remaining 7 new disk drives to the disk group with 128 disks in it.
3. User the Snapclone functionality to migrate VDisks to the larger disk group.
4. Remove 8 drives at a time from the smaller disk group and add them into the larger disk group in groups of 8 until you have only on disk group of 208 disk drives.
Once this is done, you are now spreading your I/O over 208 spindles instead of only 73, 95 or 40 disk drives. More spindles means more I/O throughput.
Phil