- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- StoreVirtual Storage
- >
- Re: Remote Copy question Part 2
StoreVirtual Storage
1752579
Members
3977
Online
108788
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
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
Forums
Discussions
юдл
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
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
тАО05-07-2009 05:27 AM
тАО05-07-2009 05:27 AM
Remote Copy question Part 2
Let's say I have a 600GB volume that I have remote copies of on another cluster. Under the volume use tab I see that the 5 remote copies sizes are as follows:
531GB
206MB
998MB
2GB
975MB
Leading to a grand total of 535GB.
Should we decide to completely get rid of the above remote copies, we would reclaim that 535GB of storage correct?
I question the validity of taking space on each cluster for remote copies as a viable DR method given the fact that the clusters are located in the same building, same row even.
Any thoughts would be appreciated!
531GB
206MB
998MB
2GB
975MB
Leading to a grand total of 535GB.
Should we decide to completely get rid of the above remote copies, we would reclaim that 535GB of storage correct?
I question the validity of taking space on each cluster for remote copies as a viable DR method given the fact that the clusters are located in the same building, same row even.
Any thoughts would be appreciated!
2 REPLIES 2
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-08-2009 12:32 PM
тАО05-08-2009 12:32 PM
Re: Remote Copy question Part 2
Yes, as long as you delete the bottommost snapshot the space would be reclaimed.
When you set up a remote snapshot schedule you can specify how many snapshots you want to keep on the primary and remote side, so you could specify only 2 snapshots are kept in your DR cluster.
When you set up a remote snapshot schedule you can specify how many snapshots you want to keep on the primary and remote side, so you could specify only 2 snapshots are kept in your DR cluster.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-09-2009 12:48 AM
тАО05-09-2009 12:48 AM
Re: Remote Copy question Part 2
Hi Bobby,
If you were to get rid of the remote copies you would regain the 535GB in the cluster that is storing those remote copies.
I also would question the use of remote copy in the scenario that you describe and would consider putting all of the units into a single cluster, and then assuming that you are using two way replication, ensure that they are split into seperate racks to maintain the volumes even if you were to lose a whole rack.
Regards, Mike.
If you were to get rid of the remote copies you would regain the 535GB in the cluster that is storing those remote copies.
I also would question the use of remote copy in the scenario that you describe and would consider putting all of the units into a single cluster, and then assuming that you are using two way replication, ensure that they are split into seperate racks to maintain the volumes even if you were to lose a whole rack.
Regards, Mike.
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