eva4400 ip replication

[Eli_Dezman]

Hello

is there option in roadmap to implement ip replication without FCIP on EVA 4400 ?

i think it's really old fashion and cost too much money to use FCIP

regards

Eli

[Uwe Zessin]

The EVA4400 does not implement FCIP - that is the job of an external box.
What protocol would you use to bridge/route between two SAN islands?

[Eli_Dezman]

netapp and clarion can replicate over ip and they SAN

[Uwe Zessin]

True, but that are different architectures.

The NetApp hardware is based on an OEM x86 frame and the OS has had LAN support for a long time. Remember that it started as a NFS file server.

The Clarion is based on an x86 embedded Windows XP kernel. I'm not competent to say anything more about the internal architecture.

The first generation EVA controllers did not even have a LAN interface. The HSV200/210 generation did have one, but it was covered and there was no software support.

The EVA4400 controller modules have one, too, but it is inside the box and only used for internal communication with the management module (WOCP).

I'd say it would require a heavy re-engineering of the controllers to equip them with one or two high-performance LAN ports.

Will HP (be able to) develop a new set of controllers just for 'cheap IP replication'? I doubt it - why don't you ask them?

[Eli_Dezman]

thanks

i will check with HP's local storage pre-sale

[CLEB]

I think FCIP is much more flexible and to a certain point more secure as it is creating a tunnel over your IP network.

[Eli_Dezman]

FCIP cost more money then IP ,
it is real problem when you want entry level midrange system

[Amar_Joshi · Accepted solution]

Think this way that every Netapp/EMC customer pays for a hardware whether they use it or not and on top of it, its not as reliable secure as FCIP. Just with my experience I can say that more than 50% arrays are not participating in replication (specially in mid-range tier) then what's the point for including the hardware which remains idle for life.

I belive cost is a driving factor here otherwise who think HP can't implement what they want.

Back to the point, I never heaerd and don't think that HP is moving forward with any such drastic change in replication architecture.

My 2 cents...