Feedback requested on HP-UX RAID CLIs

[Arief]

Currently, RAID volumes on HP SmartArray HBAs (A9890A and A9891A) on
HP-UX are configured and managed using the utility saconfig. HP is
planning to introduce a new HBA (not part of the SmartArray HBA family)
which will support RAID volumes as well as physical disks (i.e., these
HBAs, unlike the SmartArray HBAs, can be used to access RAID volumes as
well as physical disks), and is investigating which utility to best
provide for managing the RAID feature of this new HBA.

Assuming that the syntax of commands for managing the non-RAID features
of the new HBA would differ significantly from the saconfig syntax (For
example: "new_util -D [-a
...]" versus "saconfig [ ...]"), which of
the following would you find best:


1. Provide two distinct utilities for this new HBA: one for managing the
HBA itself (different in its syntax from saconfig) and one (similar to
saconfig) for the integrated RAID functionality.

2. Provide a single utility to manage and configure both the RAID and
non-RAID features of the new HBA in one of the following ways:

2.a. The syntax for managing the RAID feature is consistent with the syntax for the non RAID feature (but different from saconfig)

2.b. Same as 2.a. above, but, in addition, also provide a wrapper that reproduces the syntax of saconfig for RAID configuration and management (for users who prefer to use saconfig syntax).

2.c. The new utility is similar to saconfig style for the RAID features (but uses a totally different syntax from the one used for non RAID features).

Additional examples of saconfig and new_util style commands:

new_util get_info -D
new_util get_info -D -a port={all | }

saconfig

saconfig -R RAID_level> [-S ] -p : [-p :...] [-s :]


Questions:
1. How important is it for you to configure the RAID functionality of the new HBA using a command syntax similar to saconfig?

2. Do you feel it is better to use a single utility, rather than two, for managing this new HBA?

3. If we offer a single utility, is it more important that the RAID part looks similar to saconfig, even if the rest of the utility is very different, or that the new utility offers a consistent syntax for both RAID and non-RAID commands?

4. Anything else important to you that you want to relate to us?

Thank you for your contribution!

[Steven E. Protter]

Embedded Answers:


Questions:
1. How important is it for you to configure the RAID functionality of the new HBA using a command syntax similar to saconfig?

No opinion, though I imagine heavy users will rate this highly.


2. Do you feel it is better to use a single utility, rather than two, for managing this new HBA?

Very important. There should be a single utility that allows the handling of the listed issues and at least detect driver issues with the HBA cards themselves. The current process on all platforms is cryptic.

3. If we offer a single utility, is it more important that the RAID part looks similar to saconfig, even if the rest of the utility is very different, or that the new utility offers a consistent syntax for both RAID and non-RAID commands?

syntax compatability should take precedence. Why do we have to choose though?

4. Anything else important to you that you want to relate to us?

This is an issue across all platforms. Some sort of integrated utility where we could at least check all factors relavent to booting, shared storage and clustering is very important. Hopefully such a utility would be ported to Linux and be able to be applied to the MSA-1000 and its successors.

SEP