- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- HPE 3PAR StoreServ Storage
- >
- 3PAR disk relocation without offload of disk
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
03-26-2018 05:53 PM
03-26-2018 05:53 PM
Re: 3PAR disk relocation without offload of disk
If you're pushing to the max performance limits, then yes you should NOT mix the drive capacities in the same CPG. However, if you're not then it's not a big concern - personally I would mix all 10K into single CPG for easier management, considering that you will also be using AFC on SSD to help boost the random read performance.
Just imagine this, assume the drives are horses.
CPG_A : 16x1.2TB
CPG_B : 8x600G
CPG_C : 24x450G
BIG_CPG : 16x1.2TB + 8x600G + 24x450G = 48 spindles of 10K drives.
Now 3PAR architecture equally distributes the workloads. So if you have 3 separate CPGs, then only those disks in that CPG serves the I/O. Say you have a DB workload and you assign to CPG_B - the capacity & performance will only come from the 8x600G drives. That's not a lot of I/O potential, maybe 8x200 = 1600 IOPS. If you assign to BIG_CPG instead, you will get the capacity & performance from 24 spindles, or 3x more.
The issue with mixing drive capacities in same CPG is when the smaller drives are filled up, then the performance comes from the remaining disks, in situation above, it could be 450G filled up, then 600G and you'll end up with some volume performance coming from the 16x1.2TB or that these drives could be more heavily loaded that the other drives because it has to serve more capacity/IO. Then it might cause performance issues.
So as long as you're not pushing to the limits, AND you're using SSD (AFC or even AO - you will need license for that), then generally mixing capacities in same CPG makes it easier to manage the 3PAR.
There is no right or wrong, it really depends on the specific situation and your customer's storage admin preference.
yapkl
Note: The opinions & comments above are my personal opinions, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise
----------
If my post was useful, click on my KUDOS! thumb below! Thanks.
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »