Growing SAN Ecosystem - Is there a Need for Separate Zones for each Flavour of SAN Array?

[Alzhy]

Our SAN is growing.

We have EVAs, XP and HDS.

Is it a good idea to have separate zones for each of these arrays?

Something Like:

SERVERA_XP_ZONE:
XP_FRONT_ENDS, SERVERA_HBAS

SERVERA_HDS_ZONE:
HDS_FRONT_ENDS, SERVERA_HBAS

SERVERA_EVA_ZONE:
EVA_FRONT_EnDS, SERVERA_HBAS

instead of:

SERVERA_DISK_ZONE
SERVRA_HBAS, XP_FRONT_ENDS, EVA_FRONT_ENDS, HDS_FRONT_ENDS


Any thoughts? I've not been reading best practices lately. And there's a possibily more flavours of SAN storage arrays are forthcoming.

Thanks in advance for your inputs/thoughts.

[IBaltay · Accepted solution]

Yes,
it is good to isolate the IO of XP, HDS and EVAs not to allow the mix/interference of their IO...

[Rob Leadbeater]

Hi,

Take a look at the SAN Design Reference Guide for the current best practices:

http://bizsupport1.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00403562/c00403562.pdf

Generally you should haves zones consisting of a single initiator (HBA) and the relevant destinations (storage ports).

Mixing storage units in one zone, could cause you problems.

Cheers,

Rob

[Sivakumar MJ._1]

Operational wise the managing the environment will be easier.

From Growth prospective, it will be easier for tiered storage and will be best during consolidation and virtualization.

[Uwe Zessin]

Yes, it is a _very_ good idea.
It will prevent 'cross-chatting' and hosts who have no business on a particular array will not appear in its 'WWPN' table.
You will be able to do fine-grained access management.

[SAKET_5]

I was always told by Brocade and both HP that best practices around zoning is to stick with "single initiator zones". I assume that multiple targets would be fine if they need to exist in the same zone in question.

I am happy to be guided but I would have thought that the following would make sense in your case:

Case 1 (If SERVERA only requires access to the XP array):
SERVERA_DISK_ZONE:
XP_WWPN/WWNN; SERVERA_FCA_WWNN/WWPN

Case 2 (If SERVERA requires access to the XP, EVA & HDS arrays):
SERVERA_DISK_ZONE:
XP_WWPN/WWNN; EVA_WWPN/WWNN; HDS_WWPN/WWNN; SERVERA_FCA_WWNN/WWPN

Ofcourse, you would then have a separate zone entry for SAN attached tape devices if you require them.

In case 2, yes WWPNs of the host in question would appear on the XP, EVA & HDS arrays but thats what you need otherwise you wouldnt have zoned the host such that it sees all three arrays.

In case 2, multiple targets exist in the same zone with a single initiator - so to my understanding it adheres to the zoning best practies from Brocade & HP. Any other thoughts?

Regards,
Saket.

[Alzhy]

Saket,

Our Servers need to see XP, EVA, HDS and other SAN Arrays. Are you saying that with Case 2 in your response that it is okay and best practice to have XP, EVA and HDS FrontEnd Ports zoned with my Server's HBA? And is it still considered Best Practice?

I thought the other responders thought otherwise that I should have separate zones for each flavour array?

[Rob Leadbeater]

I would favour having different zones for different storage systems. Page 222 of the SAN Design Reference Guide has some guidance, although its not explicit...

"To configure different HP storage system types for coexistence in a common SAN, without common access from the same server, define a separate zone for each storage system family."

Cheers,

Rob

[Sivakumar MJ._1]

What ever you have the best practice is to have Single Initiator Single Target.

For Backup Devices do a Hardzoning.

[Uwe Zessin]

> For Backup Devices do a Hardzoning.

Many switches can do a so-called 'Hardzoning', even when the zone definitions are made with WWNs:
FCSW01:admin> portzoneshow
PORT: 0 (0) F-Port Enforcement: HARD WWN defaultHard: 0 IFID: 0x43020000
PORT: 1 (1) F-Port Enforcement: HARD WWN defaultHard: 0 IFID: 0x43020001

(This fabric uses only WWNs for zoning)