<   Previous Post  SVC Q&A Session
Off topic: There's...  Next Post:   >

Comments (4)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 localhost commented Permalink

Not having to modify my existing SAN, if accurate, would certainly be a benefit worth a bit more of the green folding stuff...

2 localhost commented Permalink

Deb,<div>&nbsp;</div> True, but how accurate is that. If you plan to virtualize any of your existing storage then you will have to detach it from the SAN, re-attach behind the controller and sort out the hosts. I've not seen how HDS actually handle hovering in existing storage. I'd hope they provide a simple technique as we do.<div>&nbsp;</div> SVC does not necessarily mean modification of the existing SAN, it will need re-zoned, but the infrastructure itself may not have to change. Once the existing storage is behind SVC, you can create an "image mode" vdisk that maps the old lun back to the host. You can then migrate it into true virtual mode at your leisure. <div>&nbsp;</div>

3 localhost commented Permalink

So what effect would the MAIDish feature Hitachi are introducing have on this question. Surely if a large number of those attached drives were powered down at any one time, the picture changes somewhat?

4 localhost commented Permalink

'rational',<div>&nbsp;</div> True, thats my point really, that those attachment claims are great from an archive point of view, but it means that you can't scale out the main Tier1/2 storage beyond what the single USP box can internally support. You wouldn't want to attach any high, or many mid-range controllers that are providing actual day to day production storage.<div>&nbsp;</div> As an archive solution IOPs don't really matter as much.<div>&nbsp;</div> MAID is another great prospect, but I wonder how many drives don't come back after they've been powered off - especially after a few years of use. Most drive failures either occur in very early life, or subsequent power up. Time will tell.