Multiple arrays on MSA1000

[Blair Cassidy]

We are setting up 2 Novell Clusters that share an MSA1000. Is there any advantage (or disadvantage) to configure the whole disk bank as one array or have each cluster exclusively talk to it own array. I assume SSP would allow the servers in the cluster not communicate to the wrong disk

[Ivan Ferreira]

When more disks are in the array, you will get a better performance.

[Uwe Zessin]

The bad thing is that you can only delete logical disks in reverse order from a disk drive array.

Assuming you have a disk drive array with 3 logical disks created in order: LD1, LD2, LD3 - you can delete LD1 only after you have deleted LD3 and then LD2.

[Jefferson Humber]

Blair,

As always it depends on many factors.

Personally if there are only going to be these two servers on the MSA then I would create 2 groups. Just down to personal preference, and maybe a potentially higher redundancy. If one group fails (heaven forbid), you only loose one server e.t.c

Have a look at the EVA Best Practices, whilst you can't do all of these on an MSA, most of them make sense and the majority of the best practices seem to fit. i.e an MSA disk array would be the equivalent of an EVA disk group e.t.c

http://h200001.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/lpg29448/lpg29448.pdf

Hope this helps,

Jeff

[Blair Cassidy]

If the two clusters are for email, would two separate arrays provide better performance ?

Thanks;

[Steven Clementi]

Blair:

Multiple arrays may work out better in the sense that you might not need the extra performance all the disks would give you if you created 1 array. Having the second array would give you dedicated disks for 1 cluster so there would be less contention for access, writing...reading... etc.

Additional drawback for creating 1 array would be a higher potential for failure of multiple disks. It would be better to use RAID ADG in this case, but then you lose 2 disks worth of space, but you are also protected if you have 2 disk failures at the same time.

Having multiple arrays would give you more options and potentially easier management. You would be able to set the properties and options differently on 2 arrays to customize the performance based on your 2 cluster's "needs".


Steven