- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- >
- HPE EVA Storage
- >
- Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
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
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
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
тАО03-11-2008 07:12 AM
тАО03-11-2008 07:12 AM
zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
I've inherited a system with 200 zones in each of two fabrics and the complexity doesn't seem to justify the tasks in hand.
Is it recommended to zone using WWN by function - ie putting all aliases relating to clustered server hba's EVA storage and tape drives into a single zone that relates to the functional group - for example a unix cluster and it storage and tape units or a Polyserve Matrix wintel cluster with EVA storage and tape units.
Hope this question makes sense!
rgds
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-11-2008 11:18 PM
тАО03-11-2008 11:18 PM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
best practice from Brocade is to use Single-Initiator Zoning. Using WWN-Aliases is good, too.
We have a zone for each server, whether it is clustered or not. In the zone is one Server HBA WWN and all disk target ports (the WWNs of them).
We use a separate zone for tape devices.
So, for example, if we have a server called "Bob"
Alias: "Bob" - WWN of HBA
Zone: "Bob_Disk_A" - contains alias of "Bob" and aliases of all Storage Devices to be zoned (each storage port has its own alias)
Zone: "Bob_Tape_A" - contains alias of "Bob" and aliases of all Tape Devices to be zoned
In the other Fabric the zones would be called "Bob_Disk_B" and "Bob_Tape_B"
Each of our fabrics currently have around 470 used ports, and ca. 460 zones are defined. But the zoning DB is only 21% full. There are only 2 of us managing it all, and I think we have it pretty much under control.
Hope this answer makes sense :-)
Regards,
Stephen
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-11-2008 11:31 PM
тАО03-11-2008 11:31 PM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
www.brocade.com/san/white_papers/pdf/Zoning_Imp_WP_00.pdf
├в ┬в SRV_MAILSERVER_SLT5:A server with hostname ├в mailserver├в in PCI slot 5
├в ┬в TPA_LTO9_SNG:A tape with LTO drive number 9, single-attached
├в ┬в STO_DSK3456_5C:A storage unit with serial ID 3456 on the fifth card in port C
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-12-2008 12:09 AM
тАО03-12-2008 12:09 AM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
I usually follow the recommendations in the SAN Design Reference Guide, which you can find here:
http://bizsupport.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c00403562/c00403562.pdf
In addition to the comments above, I would ensure that tape devices and storage devices are in different zones. So if Server A needed to have access to both an EVA and a tape drive, then I'd have "ServerA_EVA_Zone" AND "ServerA_Tape_Zone".
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Rob
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-12-2008 02:05 AM
тАО03-12-2008 02:05 AM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
I'm also wondering whether it's sensible to develop stephen's point about having eg a zone for bob and data and bob and tape - rather to have a cluster zone with
bob, tom, dick and harry and all their data storage aliases
... and ditto for tape connections.
This seems to me to me a much more pragmatic approach than having - eg - a numerical zone A1 containing a single server hba and a single storage hba - what is the point of this level of granularity?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-12-2008 08:55 AM
тАО03-12-2008 08:55 AM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
Think about Windows (or mixed) environment.
If a LUN is not properly fenced from a Windows host & 'accidentally' that host gets access to it, as soon as Windows OS 'see' a LUN, it will just write its signature on it, effectively corrupting the volume (if that volume was not empty & meant to be associated with another host).
Quite scary.
Rgds.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-12-2008 10:58 AM
тАО03-12-2008 10:58 AM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
Zoning does almost never help if you have a mix of servers/operating systems that access a single storage array. In that case you need LUN masking (the Compaq/HP term is: Selective Storage Presentation - SSP) on the storage array to make sure a server does not have access to disks it has no business with.
Many years ago I've heard that (some) switches can alter the Fibre Channel frames and filter LUNs or prevent write access, but I have never seen it in real life.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-13-2008 06:57 AM
тАО03-13-2008 06:57 AM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
Would anyone care to dissuade me from extending this to having a single zone for a functional cluster - ie with all the cluster member host hba's and storage aliases forming a single zone based on function(and ditto for tape).
sounds like a great idea at present!
all within a dual-fabric configuration
many thanks
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-13-2008 09:56 AM
тАО03-13-2008 09:56 AM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
That sounds OK to me... indeed I've done that in the past.
Just make sure that if you have more than one storage system that the cluster will talk to, that they each have their own zone.
Cheers,
Rob
P.S. Don't forget to assign points...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-26-2008 11:41 PM
тАО03-26-2008 11:41 PM
Re: zone granularity - aim to reduce complexity
This means zone "EVA8K_server1" will include only 2 aliases - "EVA8K" and "server1". Each alias may have several WWNs associated with them, e.g. EVA8K storage have 4 ports connected to each fabric, so 4 WWNs will be specified in 1 alias "EVA8K" on 1 fabric. Host server1 have 2 HBAs with 1 connection to each fabric respectively.
Generally speaking secure way is to isolate 1 target and 1 initiator into one zone, with as many wwns as necessary.