|
Different storage pools would be the corresponding equallogic talk, yes. Make sure they're supported by the same amount of disks.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Confirm/Deny EMC Powerlink's website is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Confirm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah, it's awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Confirm/Deny EMC Powerlink's website is terrible. It makes cisco's website look good
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
We're making GBS threads on EMC so I felt the need to post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:It makes cisco's website look good I refuse to believe this is possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:It makes cisco's website look good
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Yeah, it's awful. Worse than NOW?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Different storage pools would be the corresponding equallogic talk, yes. Make sure they're supported by the same amount of disks. I think that maybe the PS4000 doesn't have such fine grained functionality. I think that I am only able to assign a SAN as a total unit to a storage pool rather than disks within the enclosure. Like I have a Primary storage pool with a single SAN assigned (with all of its storage) and a Replication storage pool with a single different SAN (with all of its storage). I am looking around and don't see any way to split a SAN into multiple storage pools. It seems like I can add multiple SANs to a single pool however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Speaking of horrible websites, has anyone seen the web interface for a HP MSL6000-series tape library? That poo poo is atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Confirm/Deny EMC Powerlink's website is terrible. Powerlink is Dead, long live support.emc.com.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:Powerlink is Dead, long live support.emc.com. Which is also a confusing and unhelpful mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
I'm going to ask here because I trust SA more than I trust our SAN guys. We have a very large installation of EMC VNX systems, 5400's and 5700s to be exact. I reached out to the SAN guys to see if iSCSI was supported since we are already doing NFS mounts for light workload systems and was told it was not supported. Some simple googling leads me to believe otherwise, could this just be a matter of it is not licensed on our environment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
Don't the datamovers talk iSCSI to the backend? E: why do you want iSCSI? evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
routenull0 posted:I'm going to ask here because I trust SA more than I trust our SAN guys. You can in fact buy those units with File only instead of Unified, which would not give you iSCSI. I'd be surprised if that is how they were purchased, but it could be. Plus, if you are big enough to have "storage guys" you should probably listen to their recommendation. What do you need to do with iSCSI that can't be done with NFS? There are some situations where you need iSCSI instead of NFS, but they are fairly specific.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Plus, if you are big enough to have "storage guys" you should probably listen to their recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
Hey Compellent, now that Java6 is EOL it'd be a great time to release controller firmware that doesn't require it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
cheese-cube posted:Speaking of horrible websites, has anyone seen the web interface for a HP MSL6000-series tape library? That poo poo is atrocious. Yep. It's horrible, and isn't the default password still "2"? or is that the IBM version The worst interface ever made is the Remote Web Console for HDS USP-V/HP XP systems. The best is probably the XIV gui.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:You can in fact buy those units with File only instead of Unified, which would not give you iSCSI. I'd be surprised if that is how they were purchased, but it could be. Plus, if you are big enough to have "storage guys" you should probably listen to their recommendation. What do you need to do with iSCSI that can't be done with NFS? There are some situations where you need iSCSI instead of NFS, but they are fairly specific. Even on the Unified boxes, iSCSI is a separate option. It requires separate I/O modules added to the SPs to provide iSCSI ports. That was not clearly communicated to us when we purchased our VNX 5500, & I didn't discover it until a couple months down the road when I wanted to setup a new host with iSCSI. I was able to go back to our sales rep & get her to issue us the iSCSI modules for free, so I don't know what the cost normally is for that "feature", but it is definitely possible to purchase a VNX without iSCSI capability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Thrawn posted:Even on the Unified boxes, iSCSI is a separate option. It requires separate I/O modules added to the SPs to provide iSCSI ports. That was not clearly communicated to us when we purchased our VNX 5500, & I didn't discover it until a couple months down the road when I wanted to setup a new host with iSCSI. I was able to go back to our sales rep & get her to issue us the iSCSI modules for free, so I don't know what the cost normally is for that "feature", but it is definitely possible to purchase a VNX without iSCSI capability. If they sold you a Unified box without everything needed for iSCSi then your sales rep was a moron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:If they sold you a Unified box without everything needed for iSCSi then your sales rep was a moron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Zephirus posted:Yep. It's horrible, and isn't the default password still "2"? or is that the IBM version Hah yeah that's still the default password. I've used the V7000 incarnation of the XIV GUI and it is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:I'm confused about why you think this is a unique or even uncommon situation. I'm confused as to why you think I think this is a unique or even uncommon situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I'm confused as to why you think I think this is a unique or even uncommon situation. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:You can in fact buy those units with File only instead of Unified, which would not give you iSCSI. I'd be surprised if that is how they were purchased, but it could be. Plus, if you are big enough to have "storage guys" you should probably listen to their recommendation. What do you need to do with iSCSI that can't be done with NFS? There are some situations where you need iSCSI instead of NFS, but they are fairly specific. Encrypted Mount points, which I can't do with NFS. Edit: I guess I should elaborate. We use a configuration backup application for all of our network equipment and we have an IA requirement that the configurations should be stored on an encrypted file system. Not a big deal, I could run application off a local mount point with RHEL/LUKS and be done, but that removes the resiliency of having it on the SAN like we do now via NFS. Right now if we lose the server, no big deal, re-mount the NFS share on another server, swap IPs and we are back in business. It is my understanding that the quickest way to satisfy this requirement is either an iSCSI target(which I can control the actual filesystem, unlike NFS, and still run LUKS/ext4) or putting an actual HBA in the servers we use. Obviously the former was a cleaner option. I could be totally missing something, but what the requirement I am looking to satisfy cannot be done with NFS. H.R. Paperstacks fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
routenull0 posted:Encrypted Mount points, which I can't do with NFS. I'll admit to knowing nothing about what you are talking about, but is sounds like you could just present a vdisk to your VM over NFS and then just format it with whatever encrypted file system you want. Is there any reason you can't? Just because the vmdk is on NFS, doesn't mean you can't install whatever file system you want and encrypt it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I'll admit to knowing nothing about what you are talking about, but is sounds like you could just present a vdisk to your VM over NFS and then just format it with whatever encrypted file system you want. Is there any reason you can't? Just because the vmdk is on NFS, doesn't mean you can't install whatever file system you want and encrypt it. The application might require a physical server.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Ask me how you can get $2000 worth of free NetApp training. PM me an e-mail address if you're seriously interested, this is a promotion but I'm not entirely sure it's meant to be goon-rushed or for those not actually interested in NetApp. Introduction to NetApp Products Clustered Data ONTAP 8.2 New Features What's New in Data ONTAP 8.2 Licensing Data ONTAP License Key Replacement Scenarios Technical Overview of Licensing in Data ONTAP 8.2 NetApp Transition Fundamentals Clustered Data ONTAP Fundamentals Data ONTAP 7-Mode Fundamentals System Setup for FAS2200 Series FAS2240 Architecture and Configuration FAS3200/ V3200 Series Architecture and Configuration FAS6200/ V6200 Series Architecture and Configuration Technical Overview of AutoSupport Family Technical Overview of OnCommand System Manager Flash Cache Architecture, Configuration, and Maintenance Architecture, Configuration, and Implementation of Flash Pool OldPueblo fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Look what finally showed up today after almost 3 weeks. 8x600GB 15K and 7x2TB 7.2K SAS
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I'll admit to knowing nothing about what you are talking about, but is sounds like you could just present a vdisk to your VM over NFS and then just format it with whatever encrypted file system you want. Is there any reason you can't? Just because the vmdk is on NFS, doesn't mean you can't install whatever file system you want and encrypt it. Yeah, this isn't a VM environment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
It's a long shot but what about LVM replication? I have no idea if that will work with LUKS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
hackedaccount posted:It's a long shot but what about LVM replication? I have no idea if that will work with LUKS. LUKS is just a container. It runs fine inside LVM. It's useless for his application unless he wants to use a loopback filesystem on NFS (no) or he presents iSCSI, in which case LVM/noLVM is completely superfluous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Yeah maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. Instead of using some type of shared storage (iSCSI, NFS, SAN) he could use LVM replication to a 2nd host.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
hackedaccount posted:Yeah maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. Instead of using some type of shared storage (iSCSI, NFS, SAN) he could use LVM replication to a 2nd host. In that case, you'd be better off just rsyncing files to a LUKS container on a 2nd host. Or using LUKS on top of DRBD with no LVM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Thanks for all the suggestions and direction. I think can hack around this using encFS on top of the NFS share.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
routenull0 posted:Thanks for all the suggestions and direction. I think can hack around this using encFS on top of the NFS share. Honest question: is there a reason nbd or drbd won't work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Honest question: is there a reason nbd or drbd won't work? Honest answer: I don't know what those are, but I'll gladly look into it. I'm just a Network Engineer with some *nix experience. The server is just a management server running things CACTI, IP allocation programs, configuration management and change control, etc. After a hardware failure with a local disk, I decided I needed something more resilient for the somewhat critical applications, but they are not critical enough that I need to go off ordering an HBA for a fiber channel connection to the SAN. I used NFS because it is quick and dirty to setup, moved all the applications to run/store/collect there in case of another failure, I just have the sysadmin team re-image the server, and I re-mount the NFS share and I am off and running again. Minimal downtime. Then comes the IA requirement for the configuration backups to be stored encrypted. It is my understanding that it isn't possible with NFS since the underlying filesystem on the NFS server is irrelevant, because I am just using NFS protocol to read/write, the filesystem is handled/controlled by the NFS server. RHEL/LUKS all require formatting the mount point as ext3/4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
routenull0 posted:Honest answer: I don't know what those are, but I'll gladly look into it. I'm just a Network Engineer with some *nix experience. If I were you, I'd either: Set up DRBD and skip NFS entirely. Or: Cronjob to rsync gpg-zipped configs onto the NFS server. Pull them off for recovery on the backup if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
I'm looking for alternatives to Compellent. With controller upgrades, capacity expansion, and the support renewal at the 3-year mark, we're going to send $150k to Dell this year. Lots of things have happened in the storage space over the last 3 years, and I'm not necessarily happy with sinking that kind of money into buying more 2TB/450GB hard drives for a 3 year old system. For an entirely virtualized dataset using a 10g network, what stuff should I be looking at that might be competitive price-wise? Nimble? Tintri?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:39
|
|