|
optikalus posted:~SAN~ edit:If you go with EMC, make sure you buy from who EMC registers you with, as they can toss in a extra year of support for free!
|
# ? Nov 10, 2008 23:55 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 07:45 |
|
Catch 22 posted:You can get a EMC AX4-5i DP for under 20K with over 2.4TB (12x 300GB SAS 15K) of RAW usable storage. Its 19K right off the Dell site, CDW can come in under that as they can cut out the "installation" costs that Dell/EMC toss in. If you haggle with Dell they will remove it too putting you closer to 17K. If you have an account with Dell they will knock off more. The HDS SMS100 is right around 12k-15k, has dual active/active controllers, and can come with the same spindle size/count. I just got mine in, but haven't had a lot of time to mess with it yet.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 00:00 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I'm an employee of NetApp and I can try to put you in touch with someone more responsive if you're still interested. What do you do at NetApp?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 03:36 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Netapp FAS270 filer head with two or three HD magazines.. The FAS270s aren't really that ancient. They were never known for speed, but they are plenty reliable, and with a few shelves of disks, should move along alright. Really, the biggest performance issue is the small amount of memory that it can use for caching. If you know someone with a NOW login (now.netapp.com), you can download software for it. I think the 270s were end-of-sale about half a year ago, but they are definitely not end-of-life, so may even be able to buy support for it if you care. The shelves it uses are hopefully DS14mk2 units. If so, they can take 144 or 300gb FC drives if you want (10k or 15k). I'm also pretty sure you can attach DS14 shelves that are meant for SATA disks if you want capacity. So to sum up - they aren't fast, but they are pretty reliable, and they are relatively modern / can run modern ontap. Worst case, I'm sure you can eBay or sell it to a hardware reseller if you can get it cheap.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 07:39 |
|
markus876 posted:The FAS270s aren't really that ancient. They were never known for speed, but they are plenty reliable, and with a few shelves of disks, should move along alright. Really, the biggest performance issue is the small amount of memory that it can use for caching. Erg, I guess I had a mistype, it's not a 270, it's a Net Appliance NetApp F720 and it uses Eurologic NetApp XL501R Fibre Channel JBOD FC9 (I know our company has a bunch of FC7's laying around) How outdated is that?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 07:56 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Erg, I guess I had a mistype, it's not a 270, it's a Net Appliance NetApp F720 and it uses Eurologic NetApp XL501R Fibre Channel JBOD FC9 (I know our company has a bunch of FC7's laying around) OK, yea, thats quite a bit older I would probably pass on this one.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 08:51 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Erg, I guess I had a mistype, it's not a 270, it's a Net Appliance NetApp F720 and it uses Eurologic NetApp XL501R Fibre Channel JBOD FC9 (I know our company has a bunch of FC7's laying around) Scales up to 1.2TB! When you used the word "monstrous" to describe it; it made me suspicious of having a FAS270... The 270 is 3u and the heads are integrated into the back of the first shelf. http://www.berkcom.com/NetApp/netapp-F720.php here's some info on the F720.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 18:48 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Erg, I guess I had a mistype, it's not a 270, it's a Net Appliance NetApp F720 and it uses Eurologic NetApp XL501R Fibre Channel JBOD FC9 (I know our company has a bunch of FC7's laying around) For learning it is fine. OnTAP 6.5 or something will the be the latest OS it runs, since they stopped making Alpha versions sometime around then, maybe 6.4. It is going to be brutal on your electric bill, though.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 19:24 |
|
We have a secondary IDF for employee projects
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 19:46 |
|
I don't think the 720 is too monstrous. Unless, well, they wanted a 270 in the first place.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2008 21:35 |
|
Welp, it is a Netapp F720, and it has two HD magazines filled with 32GB drives. The kicker is that they want 20 bucks for the filer head and 20 dollar for each HD magazine Not bad for 60 bucks. So who on here do I know that has access to OpTap 6 software?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2008 20:01 |
|
Hey, the 720/40/60 series are beasts! Beasts in how much power they use, how much noise they make, how much space they take. But they're stable as a rock - we've still got a couple in active use, they're that good. (Realistically they've been replaced by a newer box - they make for good scratch/tmp space now). The main issue is the fun of sourcing replacement drives.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2008 20:36 |
|
If you can find an FC or SCSI drive that fits the chassis, you can slot it in and it will work. NetApp will just cancel any support on the box. If its just a temp storage spot then its not a huge deal.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2008 21:26 |
|
Welp, I made the plunge Got the filer head, two HD magazines with 7 32GB drives in them each, new in box ( ) Data OnTap 6.5 OS software (it says its for a FAS250, dunno if it will work), and a shrinkwrapped box with Data ONTAP 6.5.1R1 software in it as well as all the cabling $60 I would post pictars but waffleimages seems to be flooded or something
|
# ? Nov 19, 2008 00:17 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Welp, I made the plunge As long as it's the correct architecture type (Alpha vs. i386) you will be fine. I don't believe any of the ontap images are any different from any other. The only thing it does is run/not run processes based on licensing.
|
# ? Nov 19, 2008 01:39 |
|
With the FAS2020, do we need to pay for the CIFS and NFS software licenses if we only intend to use it as an iSCSI target initially? Understandably we'd lose the NAS functionality, but we can add it back in later. We have a PC Mall sales engineer claiming we need at least CIFS to allow Windows-based hosts to use the FAS as an iSCSI target, which just seems odd to me. edit: nevermind, I asked him the question again via email and he recanted. Huzzah! Mierdaan fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Nov 19, 2008 |
# ? Nov 19, 2008 19:34 |
|
Mierdaan posted:With the FAS2020, do we need to pay for the CIFS and NFS software licenses if we only intend to use it as an iSCSI target initially? Understandably we'd lose the NAS functionality, but we can add it back in later. I think you might needs the CIFS license if you plan to also use snapdrive on the windows hosts, but I could be wrong.
|
# ? Nov 19, 2008 20:29 |
|
Mierdaan posted:(sales bullshit) Always get them to put it in writing. It helps keep sales people honest. If you're really not sure, call up Netapp and ask them directly!
|
# ? Nov 19, 2008 22:27 |
|
Maneki Neko posted:I think you might needs the CIFS license if you plan to also use snapdrive on the windows hosts, but I could be wrong. A. No. SnapDrive no longer requires a CIFS share for the host to access the storage system volumes. And... Minimum required version of Data ONTAP: 7.1 Table of licenses you need, depending on what you want to do. code:
|
# ? Nov 19, 2008 22:33 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Q. Do I need a CIFS license on the storage system to run SnapDrive? Shows how long it's been since I used SnapDrive.
|
# ? Nov 19, 2008 22:57 |
|
Is there a good online resource for finding out what Netapp's different software licenses actually allow you to do? Their online doc on SnapDrive is horrible, horrible marketing garbage.
|
# ? Nov 20, 2008 16:44 |
|
Mierdaan posted:Is there a good online resource for finding out what Netapp's different software licenses actually allow you to do? Their online doc on SnapDrive is horrible, horrible marketing garbage. Unfortunately the only good source is the NOW support site. What would you like to know?
|
# ? Nov 20, 2008 22:54 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Unfortunately the only good source is the NOW support site. What would you like to know? I'm not even sure, really. I wanted to read through some different documentation on the various Snap* and Flex* products, just for my own edification, but wasn't finding much.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2008 00:05 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Unfortunately the only good source is the NOW support site. What would you like to know? Ah yes, that great resource. I have to say, Netapp's website is the worst website ever for finding information on anything. Mierdaan posted:
I have a pretty good handle on the licensing mumbo jumbo. If you want, shoot me an IM tomorrow.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2008 01:47 |
|
Okay this is completely random, but if anyone has a HDS SAN (the SMS100 in particular) and you enable the "account" license feature just to see what it does, the login is root with password being storage. That was sort of embarrassing.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2008 03:15 |
|
So, what are everyone's thoughts regarding stripe size for LUNs? Isn't it basically smaller for maximizing I/Os and larger for maximizing file transfers? I just read this Technet blog (here) regarding Exchange disk parameters: Technet posted:4) Tune storage array parameters. Some suggestions: 4kb cache page size (only if Exchange is the only thing on the array, otherwise leave it at 8kb). Maximize the write cache -- this is HUGE for Exchange performance; we're very write cache effective. Minimal (50-100mb) read cache. Enable cache watermarks. Enable read&write cached for all luns. Stripe element size of 64 blocks (32kb). The 32kb alignment is different from the VMWare-recommended 64kb alignment. Is this suggestion just for Exchange? I'm going a little nuts here. Most of my previous SAN work was with Datacore (former company's vendor of choice), and it was ridiculously simplified. I'm thinking for my Exchange LUNs I should set the stripe size to 64kb, align the partition at 32k boundary, and set allocation size to 32k. Does that sound correct?
|
# ? Nov 21, 2008 19:22 |
|
Ray_ posted:The 32kb alignment is different from the VMWare-recommended 64kb alignment. Is this suggestion just for Exchange? On any Windows (or Linux) host you should use diskpar or diskpart prior to creating a partition on a SAN drive. This will help eliminate stripe crossing which can degrade performance. Stripe sizing can help performance, and it depends on your application's I/O profile. I would follow recommended sizing for your application.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2008 19:46 |
|
Maneki Neko posted:Shows how long it's been since I used SnapDrive. While the share was necessary before the Snapdrive 6 came out, you did not need CIFS license. You could just go through CLI and create the necessary share as well as put permissions on it. You just did not have the option in the GUI.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2008 05:07 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Q. Do I need a CIFS license on the storage system to run SnapDrive? Another little known fact: You do NOT need FCP to run NDMP over fiber.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2008 05:09 |
|
Backing up or replicating (locally) large amount of data, how do you guys do it? So, my new project will require me to backup/replicate/copy/whatever about 100TB of data to tertiary storage. I will already be doing replicate to remote DR system, but will want to do a backup or replication job to local storage. I ruled out NetBackup with VTL or tapes since that is really unmanageable with this much storage, and now I am trying to figure out what is out there to use. So far, best option seems to be SAN vendor based replication of DATA to nearby cheaper storage SAN. So, with NetApp, for example, I could take primary 3170 SAN cluster and then SnapMirror or SnapVault that to NearPoint SAN (basically a 3140 or something). It would be similar with say Equalogic from Dell or EMC. Other then this sort of thing, which requires bunch of overhead for SnapShots, is there any sort of say block-level streaming backup software that could be used (ala MS DPM 2007)? I haven't kept up with EMC recently, but their Celerra stuff looks interesting. Is anyone here familiar with it?
|
# ? Nov 25, 2008 06:36 |
|
oblomov posted:Backing up or replicating (locally) large amount of data, how do you guys do it? So, my new project will require me to backup/replicate/copy/whatever about 100TB of data to tertiary storage. People usually use array based remote replication tools to replicate their data to another array at another site. They also use array based local replication to create local copies of their data for backup, test, dev, etc. Backup is then often over SAN to VTL or straight to tape. quote:I will already be doing replicate to remote DR system, but will want to do a backup or replication job to local storage. I ruled out NetBackup with VTL or tapes since that is really unmanageable with this much storage, and now I am trying to figure out what is out there to use. So far, best option seems to be SAN vendor based replication of DATA to nearby cheaper storage SAN. Most vendors have local replication tools to make 'Snaps' or 'clones'. It's not really that clear what you are trying to do. quote:So, with NetApp, for example, I could take primary 3170 SAN cluster and then SnapMirror or SnapVault that to NearPoint SAN (basically a 3140 or something). It would be similar with say Equalogic from Dell or EMC. Other then this sort of thing, which requires bunch of overhead for SnapShots, is there any sort of say block-level streaming backup software that could be used (ala MS DPM 2007)? I still don't follow i'm afraid quote:I haven't kept up with EMC recently, but their Celerra stuff looks interesting. Is anyone here familiar with it? What do you want to know?
|
# ? Nov 25, 2008 09:24 |
|
Vanilla posted:People usually use array based remote replication tools to replicate their data to another array at another site. Yes, I plan to do that. I am going to have a set of storage with bunch of data at one site and will replicate (through SAN replication technology, SnapMirror, SRDF, whatever) to my hot DR site. In addition to that I need a third copy of data locally for higher level of protection (and at least somewhat delayed write just in case). quote:Backup is then often over SAN to VTL or straight to tape. I need to make a backup of the data or a replica of data to localized storage. This includes a Database (SQL, 3-4TB), a few TB (say 15) of index logs (non-sql, full text search kind), and 60-70TB of flat files. Tapes won't work, there is too much to backup. I was thinking of doing SnapShot replicas but just wondered if there was a better way then doing NetApp sort of SnapMirror/SnapVault (or EMC/Equalogic/Whatever equivalent). quote:What do you want to know? How are the new Clarions compared to say a NetApp or Equalogic. I did not like cx3 series much since that seemed to be limited in both management and features compared to the competition, but it seems that Cx4 caught up to NetApp at least and bypassed it on some fronts (from a SAN perspective, not NAS).
|
# ? Nov 26, 2008 04:21 |
|
oblomov posted:Yes, I plan to do that. I am going to have a set of storage with bunch of data at one site and will replicate (through SAN replication technology, SnapMirror, SRDF, whatever) to my hot DR site. In addition to that I need a third copy of data locally for higher level of protection (and at least somewhat delayed write just in case). Ok, any decent array can do this and will have the ability to take crash consistent copies of things like Oracle and Exchange. quote:I need to make a backup of the data or a replica of data to localized storage. This includes a Database (SQL, 3-4TB), a few TB (say 15) of index logs (non-sql, full text search kind), and 60-70TB of flat files. Tapes won't work, there is too much to backup. I was thinking of doing SnapShot replicas but just wondered if there was a better way then doing NetApp sort of SnapMirror/SnapVault (or EMC/Equalogic/Whatever equivalent). As above. In the EMC world they would use something called Replication Manager. This would manage all the local replication such as cloning and snapping. Just set the times and all the other details and it'll do it the same every day. It will take consistent copies of SQL, Exchange, Oracle and others. You can then tell it to do whatever you want with that clone. Mount it flat file to a certain server, back it up, and so on. quote:How are the new Clarions compared to say a NetApp or Equalogic. I did not like cx3 series much since that seemed to be limited in both management and features compared to the competition, but it seems that Cx4 caught up to NetApp at least and bypassed it on some fronts (from a SAN perspective, not NAS). Well above you mention Celerra which is EMC NAS. Clariion is EMC Mid-Range SAN. This can turn into a real bitch fight. I suggest you look at what the market is doing and who is strong where. With regards to NAS IDC has EMC/Dell and Netapp neck and neck with regards to share, EMC/Dell at 39% and Netapp/IBM at 34%. Both far ahead of anyone else. So some good competition there, next to EMC & Netapp is HP and IBM but they're both far, far away on around 5% of market share. With regards to SAN (excluding iSCSI) it's different. EMC's range is out at 31%, Netapp at 4%. Some of that number will be Symmetrix but Gartner has always put the Clariion in the lead in magic quadrants. The CX4 does have some new features such as Flash Drives, 64bit OS, drive spin down, in the box migration (move data fro the fast drives to the slow drives), etc.
|
# ? Nov 26, 2008 22:14 |
|
Vanilla posted:Ok, any decent array can do this and will have the ability to take crash consistent copies of things like Oracle and Exchange. Yeap, looking at various things now. I am quite familiar with NetApps, run a few of the clusters right now, and much less familiar with EMC. Anyhow, appreciate the response, man.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2008 05:42 |
|
Can someone explain to me how Netapp does their licensing? I bought these F720 filers but I'm having some issues getting it to run properly (which isn't related to licensing), but I've read a blog where if you don't have the right license to run a specific software (NFS/CIFS) the thing is pretty drat useless anyways. I've gone to the Netapp website and looked up my product serial # and don't see any recent licenses under that number, and it has me worried. I also noticed on Ebay auctions 99% of the time the seller never specifies if the filer comes with a license or not, which may be why things are so cheap. I figure it probably wouldn't be worth my time/money to buy a license from Netapp, am I right?
|
# ? Dec 11, 2008 17:58 |
|
Wicaeed posted:I figure it probably wouldn't be worth my time/money to buy a license from Netapp, am I right? Yeah, you're probably pretty well hosed, unless you can find some nice field engineer to take pity on you.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2008 18:45 |
|
oblomov posted:Backing up or replicating (locally) large amount of data, how do you guys do it? So, my new project will require me to backup/replicate/copy/whatever about 100TB of data to tertiary storage. I may be a little late with this. You should look into a data de-duplicating solution for the backup and tertiary storage. Check out Data Domain. They can be optioned to mount as SMB, NFS, FC or iSCSI. I've had one that I've been playing with for a little while now. My 300GB test data set deduplicated down to 101 GB on the first pass. Speed is pretty good too. 3GB/min over a single gigabit link. As it just shows up as disk space, it's supported by pretty much every backup product you can think of too.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2008 19:15 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Can someone explain to me how Netapp does their licensing? Expensively, and based on raw capacity/filer capacity. quote:I figure it probably wouldn't be worth my time/money to buy a license from Netapp, am I right? You might as well give them a call. The worst thing that happens is they laugh at you. If you can't get a license from them, and are willing to work something out a little hokey just to get the units legally working shoot me a PM/IM and I can tell you a couple companies that can help.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2008 20:18 |
|
Wicaeed posted:Can someone explain to me how Netapp does their licensing? I bought these F720 filers but I'm having some issues getting it to run properly (which isn't related to licensing), but I've read a blog where if you don't have the right license to run a specific software (NFS/CIFS) the thing is pretty drat useless anyways. Can you describe your problem in more detail? Also, please post the output to "license" on the CLI.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2008 20:25 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 07:45 |
|
Well thats part of the problem, I can't access the CLI. Rather the OS wont load all the way.quote:
I'm guessing it's a CPU issue
|
# ? Dec 11, 2008 21:12 |