Upgrade built-in storage to SAN

[Johan Guldmyr · Accepted solution]

That's a hard one!

What about these SSD disks? Maybe the server disk will also get the models with a builtin SSD/flash or something.. Or maybe they will get a lot bigger as well.

But at least the G6 and G7 (same for two generations) have SFF disks and as far as I know the largest SFF is now 600GB? I read on theregister the other day that this year we may see 900GB SFF disks.

Do you know if your storage requirements will expand beyond the limits of the P2000 in five years? :)

If you feel it's deserved, don't for get to give points to posts in this forum if ;)

[Zygmunt Krawczyk]

SFF SAS disks were introduced with G5 servers (eg. DL360 G5, DL380 G5) and are continued with G6 and G7. Moreovers the same disks are adopted in storage systems (MSA50, MSA70, D2700, MSA2000 SFF, P2000 SFF) and will be used in new storage systems. I believe, that current HP SAS SFF standard will not change in HP systems for more than next 5 years. Probably the speed will increase to 12Gb, but it should be backward compatible with 6Gb and 3Gb.

[Thomas_VDB]

Hi,

Learned a lot thanks to this thread.

Question regarding the HP P2000 SAN that was recommended.
I am reading that this SAN comes in 3 configurations : with a fibre channel, with a SAS connection or an iSCSI connection.

Why did you recommend the SAS-configuration? Is it because I have a SAS controller in my Proliant? Is iSCSI or Fibre not a more standard solution if I want to add more host-servers later to the pool?

[Zygmunt Krawczyk]

>> I am reading that this SAN comes in 3 configurations : with a fibre channel, with a SAS connection or an iSCSI connection.

P2000 is offered in the following host connection:

1) SAS 6Gb (each controller has 4 SAS 6Gb ports, total 8 ports, each port has four 6Gb lanes, total 32 6Gb lanes, total througput 192Gb)

2) FC 8Gb (each controller has 2 FC 8Gb ports, total 4 ports, total throughput 32Gb)

3) 1Gb iSCSI (each controller has 4 iSCSI 1Gb ports, total 8 ports, total throughput 8Gb)

4) 10Gb iSCSI (each controller has 2 iSCSI 10Gb ports, total 4 ports, total throughput 40Gb

5) conbined FC 8Gb and 1Gb iSCSI

>> Why did you recommend the SAS-configuration? Is it because I have a SAS controller in my Proliant? Is iSCSI or Fibre not a more standard solution if I want to add more host-servers later to the pool?

For configurations up to 8 hosts, the P2000 SAS array is the cheapest solution with highest performance. For more hosts you can consider iSCSI (less performance, more hosts) or FC (much higher costs, more hosts).

[Michael A. McKenney]

We went with a MSA 2012fc SAN and two Cisco MDS-9124 fabric switches. The SAN is 4 Gbps dual channel fiber based. I would not go slower than this for storage to multiple servers.

If you want a inexpensive solution a NAS is OK. 1 Gbps will be slow for two servers to access. You might end up regretting such slow storage for backups.

[wobbe]

The reason for using a SAN is to be able to use VMWare features like vmotion and ha.
Since you have two different type of server I doubt that these features will work.

[Thomas_VDB]

why would ha and vmaotion not work if my servers aren't equal. The whole idea of vmware is being hardware independent, isn't it?
Off course performance would be optimal when replacing a G6 by a G5.

[Michael A. McKenney]

I looked at a C7000 Blade Center with VMWare. 5 blades, dual 8 core AMD Opterons, 64GB RAM, dual fiber HBAs, 10 Gbps NIC to Flex-10. VMWare would be able to use the 80 cores, 300+ GB of RAM how ever it wanted to load balance.

Using VMWare on a single server can pose problems. You still need cores and RAM for each application. VMWare also has overhead. I saw a server with a single quad core, 16GB of RAM trying to run four VM Servers with Exchange and SQL. They needed a lot more cores and probably 64GB of RAM.

VMware can leverage hardware. You also need to make sure you have adequate resources.

A SAN allows multiple servers to load from VMWare. You setup all your LUNs for each server. SANs are faster than a NAS or regular RAID because of the dual channel drives, large cached controllers, bandwidth to the HBAs.

You also need more NIC network bandwidth to run mutliple VMWare sessions. Do you want to share four servers on 4 x 1 Gbps teamed connections. My Exchange and SQL server both have 4 x 1 Gbps teamed NICs. The C7000 would have 10 Gbps per blade. On a single server, you will be cruxifying network performance with VMWare on 4 Gbps NIC team. You have to share resources.

[Alzhy]

Ballpark?

It depends on how I/O intensive are your VMs or if there are periods wherein ALL VMs will be hyperactive at once.

What sort of iSCSI SAN ? HomeBrew (OpenFiler) or one of the zillions of SMB NAS/iSCSI arrays out there?

If you are hell bent on proceeding, I suggest you use multiple trunked/bonded and isolated Networks for your iSCSI network and private LAN (vMotion).

I too have 2 ML350 G6's... As I could not afford the vMware HA License - I decided to go with Linux/KVM as my hypervisor and HA solution. I used CenTOS. It was an easy conversion of the VMs to KVM format. I built my own OpenFiler iSCSI array using Black Edition WD SATA Drives. 2x1Gbit bonded NICs for the iSCSI connections, 2x1Gbit Private LAN for vMotion and 2x1Gbit Client LAN connections... Worked out uber Kool.

VMs consist of:

SME Server 7.X File Server
Win2k3 SBS
Win2k3 App Server
Centos Mail/HTTP Server
2 Windows 7 Enterprise Desktops

[Wayne Henegar]

I have found this thread very interesting as I am looking at a 2-4TB SAN solution to use with HyperV. Some of you are recommending the P2000. How does it compare to the X1600 with SFF SAS drives? In features and cost.