- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- StoreVirtual Storage
- >
- Re: P4000 snapshot vs. competition
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
01-26-2012 07:22 AM
01-26-2012 07:22 AM
P4000 snapshot vs. competition
Why is it that P4000, when creating the first snapshot, consume as much space as the volume itself? For example, if I have a fully provisioned 1 TB volume, and take a snapshot, the initial/primary snapshot is also 1 TB. Now I've used 2 TB of the precious space. This is quite different from how other SAN vendors, e.g.. NetApp, EMC, do their snapshots.
What would be the reason behind HP/LeftHand choosing to consume this much space when creating snapshots? Are there real benefits to this approach or is this more of a shortcoming?
Anybody with both P4000 and NetApp (or EMC) experience care to comment on the differences in the snapshot technologies?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-30-2012 11:01 AM
01-30-2012 11:01 AM
Re: P4000 snapshot vs. competition
It doesn't consume as much space as you think. It is all "virtual" space anyway.
Lets take your anlogy of the 1tb volume. Lets also consider 500gb is actually used up. The instant you take a snapshot, that 500gb gets shifted into the "old data" column, and consumes 500gb. the volume now consumes 1gb(1gb is the smallest it starts at). after a few minutes/hours, that 1gb may grow to 3gbs, so the total consumed space is 500gb+3gb = 503gb. The next snapshot kicks off, and consumes 1gb, then slowly grows to 5gb. 500gb + 3gb + 5gb = 508gb.
It all depends on how you count the space. For our example, the snapshot takes up the most amount of space, because that is where all the data resides. Almost all data is "old" data anyway.
Bottom line: It is not doubling your usage or anything even close. It only has to keep track of the changed blocks since the snapshot. The reports showing consumed data in snapshots are sometimes confusing.