[ExchangeList] Re: SAN Boot

  • From: "Irwan Hadi" <ihblist@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:08:13 -0600

http://www.msexchange.org
-------------------------------------------------------I can't comment between 
Clariion and IBM, but I can comment between
Clariion and NetApp.
Clariion:
1. Can only have 8 snapshot (Business Continuance Volume)
http://www.emc.com/pdf/products/clariion/SnapView2_DS.pdf, which
requires their own hard drives set. This means you get to buy more
hard drives.
NetApp can do 255 snapshots, and doesn't need special volume for it.
2. Snapshot at Clariion takes longer to create than at NetApp.
3. You can't update the firmware of the Clariion by yourself. You get
to schedule EMC engineer to do it for you. That means now the time
convenient for you may not workable with the EMC engineer.
4. I have heard, but can't confirm that the EMC Clariion controllers
use Windows XP embedded.
5. Suppose you have a 100g volume , and have three LUN in it: 20 GB,
10 GB, 30 GB, and 40 GB unused.
Suppose you delete this 10 GB LUN, and want to create a 50 GB LUN
instead. You'll have to defrag the volume, which will take pretty long
for big volume.
6. EMC burns more hard drive. Burns mean hard drive that you have to
put into the system, but can't use them to store data. Eg: you are
suggested to use RAID 10 for database, while NetApp uses RAID 4 with
dual parity, which need lesser drives than EMC
(http://www.netapp.com/ftp/veritest-netapp-comp-analysis2005.pdf)

In all, I'm not saying that NetApp is better than EMC or vica versa. I
think all solution either from NetApp, EMC, HP EVA, Hitachi Thunder,
IBM Shark are all good, and got their own places. Hey, if the budget
is available, why not use it? :)

On 4/11/06, Tom Kern <tpkern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Did you have any issues with Clarion?
> What were they, if I may ask?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On 4/11/06, Taylor, George <gtaylor@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We boot our IBM Blades, HS-20s and HS-40s from an IBM DS4500 and IBM
> DS4800.
> > Some Pros:
> > 1. Replacing a server is a snap, specially if you can use your old HBA and
> don't have to change your WWN.
> > 2. No need for a RAID controller for local drives.
> > 3. Space, 14 Dual CPU servers in 7U of rack space
> > 4. Power/KVM/Network cable managability
> > 5. Can handle multiple drive failures and all systems stay running
> > 6. No waste, when my OS can run in under 7gig why RAID 1 a pair of 36Gig
> drives.
> >
> > Some Cons:
> > 1. Swap File, we keep it locally, can't remember if that was our
> determination or manufaturer's recommendation.
> > 2. HBA is a single point of failure, but then so is your RAID controller
> with local drives, never have had one fail.
> > 3. Welllll, I'll think of something else later or someone else will I'm
> sure.
> >
> > We moved away from EMC's Clarion's several years ago, so I can't comment
> on the performance of thier new stuff.  We've seen very good performance on
> the IBM FastTs.
> >
> > George Taylor
> > Systems Programmer
> > Regional Health Inc.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
>  From: Tom Kern [mailto:tpkern@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:52 PM
> >
> > To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: SAN Boot
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > EMC told me they support it but were trying to sway us away from it.
> >
> > We have an unmanaged datacenter, so they felt replacing a failed server or
> HBA would add a layer of complexity for a level 1 tech to achieve.
> >
> > Also, they mentioned something about wasting LUN's for swap files for the
> OS.
> >
> >
> > make any sense?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > On 4/11/06, Michael B. Smith <michael@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Works fine for me with HP SANs (the little MSA's) and EMC SANs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
>
> > >
> > > From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom
> Kern
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:23 PM
> > > To: ExchangeList
> > > Subject: [ExchangeList] SAN Boot
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone have any pro or con for SAN booting win2k3 with Exchange 2k3?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I know its supported by MS but I'm not sure if we should go that route.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My manager is pushing for it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We are about to purchase an EMC Clarion to put Exchange 2k3 on(which
> obviously i have no problem with) and SAN boot the OS(unsure about that).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/exchangelist/
MSExchange Newsletter: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
MSExchange Articles and Tutorials: http://www.msexchange.org/articles_tutorials/
MSExchange Blogs: http://blogs.msexchange.org/
-------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:
http://www.techgenix.com
-------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe visit http://www.msexchange.org/pages/exchangelist.asp
Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: