EVA8400 Array Support Library (ASL) for VxVM 3.5 (HP-UX 11.11) and 4.1 (11.23)

[Alzhy]

Does anyone know IF there is an ASL in the pipeline for VxVM 3.5/4.1 on 11.11 and 11.23 respectively for the HSV450 controllers on the nwe EVA8400?

We can't use AutoPath (aka SecurePath for A/A arrays) as it cannot co-exist with VxVM DMP.

TIA.

[Duncan Edmonstone · Accepted solution]

I can only see ASLs on the veritas site for VxVM 5.0 on 11.23 and 11.31...

Can I check what you mean by "cannot co-exist"?

You can certainly have non EVA LUNs under DMP control and EVA LUNs under SP for A/A control on the same system (or you should be able to at least...)

You have to make sure the non EVA LUNs are "autopath delete"'d

HTH

Duncan

[Alzhy]

Duncan, by unsupported -- I mean not Officially Supported even if the workaround as you have outlined is possible. It is explicitly mentioned in the SecurePath/AutoPath documentation I recall.

Say -- have you any thoughts on Oracle ASM on raw VxVM whole LUN Volumes? This is supported by Symantec (blessed by Oracle?) with VxVM sed solely for its DMP. Do you think there is an overhead here? I concerned about VxVM costs. We can't go to 11.31 yet (Agile devices) that would have done away the need for AutoPath and DMP. ANd our DBAs and SysAdmins are getting used to it...

[Duncan Edmonstone]

I don't know about "not supported", but there's the following statement in the latest SP manual:
http://bizsupport1.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c01683918/c01683918.pdf
------------------
IMPORTANT:
You must disable the VERITAS DMP multipath feature on a Secure Path owned device, or remove
the device from Secure Path's control by running the autopath delete command to avoid
interoperatebility issues with VxVM 4.1 and Secure Path 3.0F SP4 on HP-UX 11i v2.0.
------------------
Surely it wouldn't say that if it "wasn't supported" at all...


As for ASM on VxVM - well I see similar things being done by folks with ASM over LVM (or SLVM with RAC), and I have to say neither appeal to me - I'm a strong believer in the KISS principle, and having all the VxVM or LVM code in my IO stack just to provide MPIO seems like overkill and complexity to me... that said I have no objections from a "supported/will work" perspective - I just don't like the complexity... (but then I don't like ASM either - DBAs are *not* storage admins and should leave that stuff to the experts...)

Bring back filesystem based databases I say! I know there has been perf issues for some folks in this space, but I think we should see those being reduced when VxFS 5.01 is released on 11.31... getting to 11.31 should be your goal - the other perf increases outside of the storage stack should also help with most Oracle databases...

HTH

Duncan

[Alzhy]

Duncan,

Quality answers man. I apperciate it a lot.

The DOcu I saw was for 11.11 and HP even acknowledged it. I don't see why it won't apply to 3.5 though but that is just a guess.

Thanks good sir.

N.