Re: Question on LUN Sizes for storage migration
- From: Kenny Payton <k3nnyp@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ksmadduri@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:46:47 -0400
The size of the lun is not as important as the IO characteristics of it.
The performance difference of the two luns could be identical or
drastically different, it really depends on a lot of variables.
My recommendation is to attempt to build the best relationship you can with
your Storage Team and understand the configurations to the best of your
ability. While doing this also share the database workloads and behaviors
with them. Together you have the best chance of creating a sustainable and
performant environment not to mention a relationship that will pay you back
10x over time.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Kumar Madduri <ksmadduri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We were originally given 90 GB LUNS.
> As part of storage migration to another vendor, we are being provisioned
> with 500 GB LUNS.
> From a migration point of view, is it ok to move the data from 90 GB LUNS
> ton 500 GB LUNS. We would have 20 90 GB LUNS (old storage) and 4 500 GB
> LUNS (new storage)
>
> alter diskgroup DATA
> drop disk
> '/dev/old-lun1 -90-gb', '/dev/old-lun2-90-gb' ...., '/dev/old-lun20-90-gb'
> add disk
> ‘/dev/new-lun1-500gb’, ‘/dev/new-lun2-500gb, ’, ‘/dev/new-lun3-500gb,
> ’, ‘/dev/new-lun4-500gb, ’ ;
>
> Concern is, would it be better to stick to 90 G LUNS on new storage as
> well or move to 500 GB LUNS as above (as part of migration). Our concern is
> would it slow down migration if we alter the lun sizes as part of migration
> process.
> Our Unix/Storage admin prefers the 500G LUN because they say it will
> reduce the time for reboot (when required) if we have fewer number of LUNS.
>
> Thanks again for time.
>
> - Kumar
>
>
Other related posts:
