HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Host based mirroring with an XP and an EVA
Operating System - HP-UX
1830057
Members
2378
Online
109998
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
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
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- 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
07-21-2009 11:26 AM
07-21-2009 11:26 AM
I want to do host based LVM mirroring using two different types of storage. The LUNs would come from an XP12000 and an EVA8400. The XP has 2x16 port 2Gb cards, and 146GB 10K FC drives. The EVA8400 has 4Gb connections, 300GB 15K FC drives, and 22GB cache. The SAN is 4Gb.
This is for a DRLite (Disaster Recovery Lite) scenario. I.e. The XP is in one building on the campus and the EVA is in another building. There is one pair of HP-UX servers and one pair of AIX servers using VCS. The server pairs are split between the two buildings. A set of XP LUNs are given to the HP-UX servers and LVM mirrored to a set of EVA LUNs. Same with the AIX servers using a different set of LUNs.
What I want to know is if this is a workable solution? Are there any compatibility or performance issues that I need to be concerned about? Are there any documents or white papers for this type of setup? I was thinking about having the LUNs from each type of storage come into different HBAs on the servers.
This is for a DRLite (Disaster Recovery Lite) scenario. I.e. The XP is in one building on the campus and the EVA is in another building. There is one pair of HP-UX servers and one pair of AIX servers using VCS. The server pairs are split between the two buildings. A set of XP LUNs are given to the HP-UX servers and LVM mirrored to a set of EVA LUNs. Same with the AIX servers using a different set of LUNs.
What I want to know is if this is a workable solution? Are there any compatibility or performance issues that I need to be concerned about? Are there any documents or white papers for this type of setup? I was thinking about having the LUNs from each type of storage come into different HBAs on the servers.
Solved! Go to Solution.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-21-2009 11:46 AM
07-21-2009 11:46 AM
Solution
Shalom,
Partial commentary:
What I want to know is if this is a workable solution?
No. DR on two buildings on the same campus is only a solution for lost of the disk array. It is not a real DR solution.
Are there any compatibility or performance issues that I need to be concerned about?
No issues there with enough band width to handle data replication.
Are there any documents or white papers for this type of setup?
http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/categoryhome.do?categoryId=207
There are a number of DR white papers.
I recommend the following google search.
Disaster Recovery white papers site:docs.hp.com
SEP
Partial commentary:
What I want to know is if this is a workable solution?
No. DR on two buildings on the same campus is only a solution for lost of the disk array. It is not a real DR solution.
Are there any compatibility or performance issues that I need to be concerned about?
No issues there with enough band width to handle data replication.
Are there any documents or white papers for this type of setup?
http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/categoryhome.do?categoryId=207
There are a number of DR white papers.
I recommend the following google search.
Disaster Recovery white papers site:docs.hp.com
SEP
Steven E Protter
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-21-2009 11:58 AM
07-21-2009 11:58 AM
Re: Host based mirroring with an XP and an EVA
I couldn't tell for AIX but under ServiceGuard, this is known as an "Extended Distance Cluster" and it is officially documented and supported, although you should check since you have two different arrays involved.
Unless performance is an absolute requirement for you, it's actually simpler with what you're doing than having to bridge your cluster technology with the replication of your SAN arrays; you're also totally hardware vendor independent as far as your SAN is concerned.
Look in the Serviceguard docs for more info.
Unless performance is an absolute requirement for you, it's actually simpler with what you're doing than having to bridge your cluster technology with the replication of your SAN arrays; you're also totally hardware vendor independent as far as your SAN is concerned.
Look in the Serviceguard docs for more info.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-21-2009 03:14 PM
07-21-2009 03:14 PM
Re: Host based mirroring with an XP and an EVA
Thank you Steven and Olivier.
Steven, you are correct that this is not a true DR solution. This is why we have coined the phrase DRLite. We already have a true DR solution set up with another city in the US. This true DR solution is for an entire site disaster where we would have to fail over to the other city.
However, a more common situation is within a single site (power or data to a building gets cut, server goes down, storage goes down, storage/server maint, etc...) This is what we are planning for which we call DRLite. We don't want to fail over to another city if we have redundant systems in another building on the same site. We are using Veritas Cluster Server (VCS). It also allows us to remain running if the facilities folks need to work on a single building's power or we need to work on one set of servers (patching, upgrades, etc...). We can just fail over to the other servers in the other building. Iâ m glad there are no compatibility issues. Thank you for the white papers link.
Olivier, I'm not totally familiar with ServiceGuard, but isn't the Extended Distance Cluster where you have a cluster over routers. I mean, you have to extend your SAN or network over a set of routers that would change SAN into TCP-IP and then back again? In our case the SAN and LAN are all contiguous, connected via switches. So, there are no routes/bridges to contend with. It is just one large SAN connected to all the buildings.
After writing this I came up with another issue. If I lost a building (i.e. loss of the primary cluster node and loss of a storage array) and I had to fail over to the other secondary node, wouldn't the OS complain when I tried to import the VG without half of it's mirrors? I could probably disable quorum but is there anything else I'm forgetting?
I don't have the EVA8400 on-site yet so I can't test with it. But, I do have an EVA8100 that I could test with.
As far a compatibility goes, I say storage is stupid. It only responds to the hosts connected to it. So it shouldn't matter where the LUNs are coming from because the host will dictate all of the reads/writes and mirror synch.
For performance, I realize that in any host based mirroring there will be a small performance hit on the server. What I have to be concerned with is my choice of storage for the mirrors. I should pick storage devices that have almost the same performance characteristics (IOPS, latency, etc...). If both storage devices respond in the same time to write requests then they will not induce an additional latency on the server.
From everything Iâ ve seen or read about, the EVA8400 with 22GB of cache can keep up with an XP12000. I should qualify that it should keep up with MY XP12000 that is not a fully loaded XP.
Steven, you are correct that this is not a true DR solution. This is why we have coined the phrase DRLite. We already have a true DR solution set up with another city in the US. This true DR solution is for an entire site disaster where we would have to fail over to the other city.
However, a more common situation is within a single site (power or data to a building gets cut, server goes down, storage goes down, storage/server maint, etc...) This is what we are planning for which we call DRLite. We don't want to fail over to another city if we have redundant systems in another building on the same site. We are using Veritas Cluster Server (VCS). It also allows us to remain running if the facilities folks need to work on a single building's power or we need to work on one set of servers (patching, upgrades, etc...). We can just fail over to the other servers in the other building. Iâ m glad there are no compatibility issues. Thank you for the white papers link.
Olivier, I'm not totally familiar with ServiceGuard, but isn't the Extended Distance Cluster where you have a cluster over routers. I mean, you have to extend your SAN or network over a set of routers that would change SAN into TCP-IP and then back again? In our case the SAN and LAN are all contiguous, connected via switches. So, there are no routes/bridges to contend with. It is just one large SAN connected to all the buildings.
After writing this I came up with another issue. If I lost a building (i.e. loss of the primary cluster node and loss of a storage array) and I had to fail over to the other secondary node, wouldn't the OS complain when I tried to import the VG without half of it's mirrors? I could probably disable quorum but is there anything else I'm forgetting?
I don't have the EVA8400 on-site yet so I can't test with it. But, I do have an EVA8100 that I could test with.
As far a compatibility goes, I say storage is stupid. It only responds to the hosts connected to it. So it shouldn't matter where the LUNs are coming from because the host will dictate all of the reads/writes and mirror synch.
For performance, I realize that in any host based mirroring there will be a small performance hit on the server. What I have to be concerned with is my choice of storage for the mirrors. I should pick storage devices that have almost the same performance characteristics (IOPS, latency, etc...). If both storage devices respond in the same time to write requests then they will not induce an additional latency on the server.
From everything Iâ ve seen or read about, the EVA8400 with 22GB of cache can keep up with an XP12000. I should qualify that it should keep up with MY XP12000 that is not a fully loaded XP.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP